Sarevok,
My condolences for your loss.

thanks for the report! :)

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

Difficult question. Have to think about that for a while.

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

Sorry I hate this pro political fights!Realy sorry for every one!Sarevok Great war is cool!Keep up good work!GeZe sorry too,just don't step on the place you don't need to!:-D

Let meknow abot your wiil for cooperation!

Difficult question. Have to think about that for a while.
perhaps I can test some new stats?

1.7 target date: June 6th (yes, that is intentional)

What is so special in june 6th?

Arvln

D- Day?

Adler

D- Day?

Adler
I figured why not? even though D-Day was in WW2, I like to release scenarios or stuff equivalent on special days in history.

Sarevok, will you give turkey a battlecruiser(Yavuz Sultan Selim ex SMS Goeben) in ver 1.7?
The battlecruiser was german until it was bought by turkey in the middle of ww1. It was one of the reasons why turkey went into war in the German side.

Arvln

Sarevok, will you give turkey a battlecruiser(Yavuz Sultan Selim ex SMS Goeben) in ver 1.7?
The battlecruiser was german until it was bought by turkey in the middle of ww1. It was one of the reasons why turkey went into war in the German side.

Arvln
possibly for 1.8, 1.7 is finishing up, I just need to test it out.

New Features:

- Fixed some population stats
- Some unit stats changed
- Superdreadnought unit
- additional mine locations
- Fixed bugs with Artillery
- Some new graphics
- and much more!

I figured why not? even though D-Day was in WW2, I like to release scenarios or stuff equivalent on special days in history.
Sarevok,

Maybe you can use another dates to release the scenario:

1- • June 28: Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary assassinated in Sarajevo by a Serbian activist.
2- • June 23 - July 8: First Battle of Isonzo, an Italian offensive against fortified Austrian positions along a 50-mile front. Italy makes ten more attacks between 1915 and 1917 in the same place (The Second - Eleventh Battles of Isonzo) for no real gains. (IF)
3- • June 4-October 17: The Brusilov Offensive, an initially successful assault which shatters the Austrian army. (EF)
• June 5: Kitchener, the British Minister for War and face of the 'Your Country Needs You' posters is killed at sea.

Or May 31st- June 1st Battle of Jutland.

Adler

ill pick june 5th for Kitchener. I need it to be pretty soon and most of those are either impossible or too late.

Great! I will be waiting for the ver 1.7

June 8th is also a pretty important day in history.

June 8th is also a pretty important day in history.
Refresh my memory on what that is?

Well, for a few important events:
452 - Attila the Hun invades Italy
570 - Islam is founded in Makkah
1953 - Flint-Worcester Tornadoes: A tornado hits in Flint, Michigan killing 115. This is the last tornado to claim more than 100 lives.
1967 - Israeli attack on USS Liberty
1998 - Charlton Heston assumes the presidency of the National Rifle Association.
2004 - First transit of Venus since 1882; the next one will occur on June 6, 2012.

BUT, most important is the fact that it's my birthday. :-)

Russia has become a nuisance to me in my current game.
They aren't a threat, but their stacks of cossac's are really annoying.
They really do no damage to me, but I have to divert a lot of troops to repelling them.
Although they work as a good promotion machine for my troops and help me on beating the French. :-)
It's very hard to take cities from Russia because they have like 20 units defending their borders. I don't loose much troops myself, but I just don't have that many troops myself to take the cities in one turn and they reinforce the next turn.

I've been choking London since I researched railguns, cutting roads to their capital.

Rocoteh, would you mind fixing the civilopedia for units in the next version? They show the wrong shield amount for a lot of units. It's wrong in almost all artillery units.
It's not that bad now, because I've learned the correct amounts through trial and error, but when deciding what to research next it comes a real problem.

Oh and pollution still exists. I guess it's from improvements.

And do you know why the sword icon doesn't appear on cities that have barracks?
It would be very handy since Sclieffen plan doesn't give out free barracks anymore.

What's the point of "Wireless Communications" tech?
Not sure, but doesn't atleast all the major powers start with an intelligence agency?
I don't use radio towers myself and it doesn't seem worth researching for the major port improvement.
I suspect that the Brits are stealing my techlead (Like I did myself when playing them).
I'm getting a lot "xxx tried to plant a spy in your capital" and "our military plans have been stolen".

When playing Germany, do you get a rephit if you attack Denmark since the minefields are in their territory?

Also an interesting thing happened: Spain declared war against Portugal, which led to all the allied countries to declare war against Spain. Poor Spain.
I just hope it wasn't because of the submarine bug.
That's the first neutral country I've seen declaring war on this scenario in all of my games.

in my games spain and netherlands are in a war for like 9 terms

Propably just the sub-bug. I see no other reason why those neutral civs would want to commit suicide. They accidentaly declare war on one of the alliances and then beg for peace the first chance they get.

Well, for a few important events:
452 - Attila the Hun invades Italy
570 - Islam is founded in Makkah
1953 - Flint-Worcester Tornadoes: A tornado hits in Flint, Michigan killing 115. This is the last tornado to claim more than 100 lives.
1967 - Israeli attack on USS Liberty
1998 - Charlton Heston assumes the presidency of the National Rifle Association.
2004 - First transit of Venus since 1882; the next one will occur on June 6, 2012.

BUT, most important is the fact that it's my birthday. :-)
pretty good stuff here...

Back to the scenario, with Rocoteh's absence activity here has been minimal. I have no choice but to Release 1.7 by May 31st. I am severely dissapointed by the lack of activity here, as it appears that I have been cast aside. I am now moving my official base to Gog's Forum at http://www.gogf.tk/ where my scenarios will be based. I will still release my scenarios on CFC, but not like anyoine would care.

Hey Sarevok, nobody has cast you aside! We are eagerly waiting for 1.7 and all the new civilopedia stuff in it. You have watered our mouths, but said you didn't want to release it before 06/06. So I assumed you are still working on new additions to the scenario (did you find more graphics for the techs - Ukas has made a lot since I saw it last time). Moreover, did you find the flags I pointed you to - US, UK and others?

Hey Sarevok, nobody has cast you aside! We are eagerly waiting for 1.7 and all the new civilopedia stuff in it. You have watered our mouths, but said you didn't want to release it before 06/06. So I assumed you are still working on new additions to the scenario (did you find more graphics for the techs - Ukas has made a lot since I saw it last time). Moreover, did you find the flags I pointed you to - US, UK and others?
Yes, I have been cast aside. One person saying otherwise is not good enough for me. As for 1.7, there are no flags. The only graphic additions are the tech graphics I still need to put in. But, what is the point when my scenarios are having vendetta votes against them? When nobody posts in this thread? When people dismiss my work thinking im monopolistic?

The Decision:

I have been forced to come to a decision. I cannot maintain the DIV version of Rocoteh's Scenario, and So Im afraid that it cannot be updated. I have learned that I have large-scale plans for this summer, so I will not be releasing any scenarios over the summer, and likely very few updates. The only scenario's I would work on would be either TOEWW2 or (if the LOTM people finish the mod) a new LOTR scenario.

I am severely discouraged by the lack of posting in this thread, therefore I have another desicion. I am leaving it to the members of the forum to upkeep this thread and maintain its updates. In other words, I will not make any update to the scenario unless I recieve a large amount of feedback about the current version, and specific things that I should improve. I have heard many say this scenario is "King", "Incredible", and "Very fun to play". I have also seen sabotage voters whose only goal is to vote against the thread. Concerning the one who did it, I have heard that they have been banned.

In my opinion the poll is no longer reliable, and I beleive that for this scenario to proceed, I will need direct feedback. I hope that we can move this scenario forward for the good of all.

- Sarevok

Sarevok, what you tell is nearly a catastrophy. What´s going on? Is it so bad? What haapened? Personally I had little time so I only played a few turns. It is too less to say. I think here are many users who only awaits the new version. You will disappoint them. We do not know what happened but if you do this and stop all your work the rebel voting against you will have been won. You´re doing a phantastic job here. And the idiot who is against you is only one. So I can only please you to continue your work. And 1527 posts in such a short time should be record.

Adler

Youre right, This was an act ;) :mischief: :p

The only true thing is that GCF will now have TGW on it, and it will become the main testing ground for the new versions. In other words, BETA tests for the main versions released here.

TGW 1.7 is getting released tommorow

Keep your spirit up, Sarevok!

Im getting FTP setup, ill be sending TF the DL very soon.

Im getting FTP setup, ill be sending TF the DL very soon.
did, Im awaitng the DL links.

The Decision:

I have been forced to come to a decision. I cannot maintain the DIV version of Rocoteh's Scenario, and So Im afraid that it cannot be updated.

- Sarevok

OK, I will take over TGW-DIV again, although I can not
give any target date yet for 1.3.
Right now I am working with 1.2a, which is a naval expansion.

Rocoteh

OK, I will take over TGW-DIV again, although I can not
give any target date yet for 1.3.
Right now I am working with 1.2a, which is a naval expansion.

Rocoteh
Thank you :)

I have 8 more days of school left, and Tommorow ill finish the last of the big projects. Ill become a semi-regular person here again after June 10th. I say Semi because I have huge plans this summer to create " A machine of war" for next year.

@Sarevok: " A machine of war"? Will that be a scenario? Sounds interesting.

@Rocoteh: Good to see you back. It had become a little bit quiet here.

Btw, Sarevok, I remember that you once thought about changing the tech tree, but refrained from doing it, because you didn't have a graphics program or so. Are you still interested in that (for 1.8)? Because I saw that Gogf made some changes (conc. the arrows) for his scenario's tech tree and perhaps he is willing to help out, as it seems that you are quite good friends.
(And, if he isn't willing or doesn't have time I would try to see if I can manage it, although I don't have any fancy software for it. However, Windows "on board tools" seem to be enough.)

Good luck for your last 8 days (in school), Sarevok!

CellKu

@Sarevok: " A machine of war"? Will that be a scenario? Sounds interesting.

@Rocoteh: Good to see you back. It had become a little bit quiet here.

Btw, Sarevok, I remember that you once thought about changing the tech tree, but refrained from doing it, because you didn't have a graphics program or so. Are you still interested in that (for 1.8)? Because I saw that Gogf made some changes (conc. the arrows) for his scenario's tech tree and perhaps he is willing to help out, as it seems that you are quite good friends.
(And, if he isn't willing or doesn't have time I would try to see if I can manage it, although I don't have any fancy software for it. However, Windows "on board tools" seem to be enough.)

Good luck for your last 8 days (in school), Sarevok!

CellKu
the "machine of war" is real-life stuff. Im going to "mentally train myself" to create an unchallengable supremacy in preparation for major battles next school year. You know... High school stuff ;)

I think that in General I have gotten used to the tech tree, and it works pretty well for my purpouses. I beleive that Gogf would help if I asked, but I dont neccesarily need it...

TF still hasnt given me the PM back...

Yes, I would help if you asked, however, it sounds like you have it under control. If not, feel free to ask :).

@CellKu: It's a long time consuming cut-and-paste proccess.

Yes, I would help if you asked, however, it sounds like you have it under control. If not, feel free to ask :).

@CellKu: It's a long time consuming cut-and-paste proccess.
I may in the distant future ;)

TGW 1.7 is up and running!

- Superdreadnought Class Battleship
- New unit Graphics
- Removed Artilery Bug
- Slightly changed unit stats
- Some cities sizes changed
- large amounts of new graphic Icons for the Civilopedia
- And MUCH More!

I got the first download! Okay, I'll upload it to GCF tomorrow...

EDIT: It still says the zip has zero views :hmm:.

I got the first download! Okay, I'll upload it to GCF tomorrow...
alright! Be sure to PM me there when you do!

I have download it and gonna play it, i will report if i found something interesting to take notes. Thank you for giving us a great scenario to play

Arvln

I have download it and gonna play it, i will report if i found something interesting to take notes. Thank you for giving us a great scenario to play

Arvln
Thanks, I hope that we shall hear from you soon :)

Sarevok,

I have just downloaded 1.7.
With the biq-file as an attached file, we will for
the first time get the correct number of downloads.
That is probably +100%.

Rocoteh

Slow updates!

I downloaded 1.7 40 minutes ago.
Still no "view"-update.

Rocoteh

ive seen that too... It dosemt matter too much. I suppose ill just put the counter back up later.

Its have been updated now.

I guess this version will have been downloaded
500 times 3 weeks from now.

Rocoteh

hopefully, that would be a luck break after all of this lack of activity this last week...

hopefully, that would be a luck break after all of this lack of activity this last week...

Overall, however TGW is the most active scenario-thread
that exists!
Then one should also consider that WWI normally do not
rank among the most popular subjects.

Rocoteh

Yes, I would help if you asked, however, it sounds like you have it under control. If not, feel free to ask :).

@CellKu: It's a long time consuming cut-and-paste proccess.

I didn't know that, since I don't have much experience with modding the tech tree. Thanks for your advice. It just came to my mind that you made a very thorough job for your scenario. So, I thought it might be nice to involve you here, as well. :)

CellKu

Overall, however TGW is the most active scenario-thread
that exists!
Then one should also consider that WWI normally do not
rank among the most popular subjects.

Rocoteh

That is right! You all made it to become one of the most interesting topics! :)

I am now going to download it as well! :D I am really looking forward to it!! :D :D

Just finished my DIV 1.2 game. I'll give 1.7 a shot now.
btw. I got a Load Error / FILE NOT FOUND / "art\leaderheads\HAl_CONQ.pcx"
when I finished.

Sarevok

Is Germany suppose to have one free tech because of their scientific traits? I started as German Empire three times and twice I got American War entry as a free tech and a Chlorine gas in the last one.

It is strange to see that I can build American War Entry wonder in the start of the game

Arvin Tunas

Sarevok

Is Germany suppose to have one free tech because of their scientific traits? I started as German Empire three times and twice I got American War entry as a free tech and a Chlorine gas in the last one.

It is strange to see that I can build American War Entry wonder in the start of the game

Arvin Tunas
that shouldnt happen. In fact, Germany shouldnt be able to build the "American War Entry". Firaxis needs to fix their editor.

Great job, Sarevok! I really like the new sounds and graphics! (although I'll propably turn the sounds off after a while)

I'm having very mixed feelings about the renamed units in DIV. Rocoteh, you've done a great job doing research on them, but they can get really confusing. It's just so much simpler when every unit is called the same. Saves a lot of time going through civilopedia "what stats did this unit have again? oh, it's A Infantry! D'oh!".
It does add to the realism, but just confused me too often.
Eventually you become used to it. I say keep them, because it really does separate this scenario from all others.

I see Germany has a lot more techs in BRI, maybe I'll finally achieve the tech victory.
I've ran out of time in all my games before (as in won by VP). I don't even know what exactly happens when you research American War Entry.

Oh and Rocoteh, I won by VP on my last DIV 1.2 game with Germany. I must say that it came too soon. Or maybe conquering the Europe mainland is a good condition for victory. And of course I could have continued after the VP victory, but I'm just one of those people who don't see a point in it. (and in my last game it crashed so I didn't even have the chance to do so).
It's really hard to suggest what the VP condition should be because it depends so much on the civ you play.
Playing Germany I got a lot of VP from repelling the feeble Russian counter-attack. They just have that enormous production power and use it to produce those obsolete units. I wish Russia was a greater threat. Now it just feels like I'm walking on a beach and sand keeps getting to my shoes and it's very easy just to take off the shoe and pour the sand out, but I have to do it like every five minutes.

My first take on 1.7 is very positive. I'm looking forward on playing more turns.

Right now I am working with 1.2a, which is a naval expansion.


I can't wait for it! I really like the navy aspect in 1.2 already!

Im glad you are enjoying 1.7! I hope to hear more about your game and possible things to change for 1.8! Thank you very much :)

Since I have taken over TGW-DIV again, the naval expansion
will come with TGW-DIV 1.3.
That is: There will be no 1.2a.
No target date for 1.3 yet.
I am considering two alternatives for the naval expansion:
One standard Light Cruiser and one standard Armored Cruiser.
The alternative is have up to 15 different types of Light Cruisers
and Armored Cruisers.

Rocoteh

15 different types of cruisers?
Wow It gonna be interesting.
Will it have sea unit like torpedo boats or minelayer??

Arvln

15 different sea units? :eek: That would mean we will have to focus much more on naval strategy! :)

CellKu

15 different types of cruisers?
Wow It gonna be interesting.
Will it have sea unit like torpedo boats or minelayer??

Arvln

Arvln,

Maybe Torpedo boats, but not minelayers, since AI
can not handle such units.

CellKu,

I also hope there will be new graphics for WWI Light Cruisers
and Armored Cruisers when 1.3 is completed.

Rocoteh

It is unfortunately impossible to have mine layers since you can´t load sea units on other sea units (a suggestion for civ 4). SOE tried this but failed.

Adler

Instanbul is no Constantinople :band:

Instanbul is no Constantinople :band:
The name was officially changed by the Republic of Turkey sometime in the 1930's. It was constantinople during WWI

Sarevok, you guys should do a faq about the names of places. :-)

hey Sarevok,

another winner from you. just started playing yesterday took ages to load (my slow comp). Nice attention to detail must of taken you ages to make.

Sarevok, you guys should do a faq about the names of places. :-)
what exactly would be required in that?

hey Sarevok,

another winner from you. just started playing yesterday took ages to load (my slow comp). Nice attention to detail must of taken you ages to make.
It took much longer than TTK did. This project started in November while it was released as a BETA in early January. It is "the jewel in the crown" of my scenarios in my opinion, though TOEWW2 and its mods may usurp that position.

With TGW-DIV now back in my hands, I have decided to
support it at least until CIV4 is published.
Ideas and comments on 1.3 are welcome.

Rocoteh

what exactly would be required in that?

Well atleast to my count that was the third time someone complained about the Istanbul <-> Constantinople issue.
And other names have been complained on too like Romania <-> Rumania.
Maybe you should just state somewhere on the first post that the spelling is that of what it was in 1914, but knowing people, not a lot of them read faqs.

(the irony of it all): I'm pretty sure it's Hindenburg, not Hindenberg in the German leaders. :mischief: (nothing important, fix if you remember and bother)

Ideas and comments on 1.3 are welcome.

First suggestions would be removing the attack mines and make the minefields more like in BRI version. So that they can be destroyed (def 40), but there should be more of them in a stack. I found the floating mines totally useless in my games.

They are not totally useless so I used them whenever a British ship dared it to near one of my minefields. So there were some ships lost due to my mines. It is a ptiy that it is impossible to use mines adequatly.

Adler

Ok, I admit it. I once used an attack mine. :sad:
Maybe 50 defence would be better. Or maybe some kind of mix so that you can cover up the holes with the attack mines...
The British are wiping them off in a few turns in my current game. And the AI ain't as dumb as I hoped for. They only clear a path and use that after that.
Those mines ashore Calais only last one turn.

The idea with the minefields is stop Britain from
making unrealistic hit and run raids against German cities
and also to prevent large scale British operations in the Baltic.

Rocoteh

Yes yes. I'm all for that. I just think it's also realistic that they can eventually after heavy losses be destroyed. I remember when playing the Brits and conquering the harbor cities of mainland (Bremen and Hamburg) and having those minefields surrounding what became my own cities. I couldn't send direct support to the cities because of the minefields. So after annihilating the German fleet it's just the next step to clear the path of those mines. The AI tries damn hard on doing that.
Because of this it's too easy just to wait for them behind the minefields and then counter-attack when they try to bomb the mines that can't be destroyed.
So what i propose is to put like five of those def40 per stack so that it can be done, but with heavy losses. Like in BRI, but more mines or a better defence value, because they really tear down that one fast.

Edit: Also the thing is that Denmark/Sweden/Norway don't mind having minefields in their territory, but they do mind having the attack mines, so basically you have to sing a ROP with them or expose your attack mines.

You have a point, but there is also a problem:

I do not want the British AI start to regard the Minefields
as static Dreadnoughts. Its a great risk it will do that.

Rocoteh

The name was officially changed by the Republic of Turkey sometime in the 1930's. It was constantinople during WWI

Oh, this is only a song by They might be giant. Only a joke :)

About ver 1.7
I found out that two of the British Army which were started in France, move straight away to Gribaltar and rested there forever. Leaving me(France) alone fighting in europe.Is it a bug?

I also found out that there are some division in the war, British was fighting in the sea and in the middle east and only two units helping me defending western front, belgium fighting for it survival, portugal sending cruiser into the north sea and few insignificant infantry into belgium. Greece and the rest of balkan country are fighting in their own terms.

I notice that both British and German fleets were destroyed after 10 turns or so. The german's was destroyed by the British's and the later one annihilated while sweeping the minefield.( well it is an old story though).

Small things that happens in my game as france is that suddenly Russia declare war with netherland which almost eliminated it( if not because the german took the city from the british and I retook it and given it back)

Suggestion, do you mind if you put back the static unit in netherland to prevent right of passage abuse.

It si good to know that you create a new files for the unit to fix the problem in 1.6
Nice new tech icon and units!Nice job! Keep it up Sarevok!

Arvin Tunas

About ver 1.7
I found out that two of the British Army which were started in France, move straight away to Gribaltar and rested there forever. Leaving me(France) alone fighting in europe.Is it a bug?

I also found out that there are some division in the war, British was fighting in the sea and in the middle east and only two units helping me defending western front, belgium fighting for it survival, portugal sending cruiser into the north sea and few insignificant infantry into belgium. Greece and the rest of balkan country are fighting in their own terms.

I notice that both British and German fleets were destroyed after 10 turns or so. The german's was destroyed by the British's and the later one annihilated while sweeping the minefield.( well it is an old story though).

Small things that happens in my game as france is that suddenly Russia declare war with netherland which almost eliminated it( if not because the german took the city from the british and I retook it and given it back)

Suggestion, do you mind if you put back the static unit in netherland to prevent right of passage abuse.

It si good to know that you create a new files for the unit to fix the problem in 1.6
Nice new tech icon and units!Nice job! Keep it up Sarevok!

Arvin Tunas
1. There is no way to make them move to the western front, But the fact they are on the mainland sadly is to create the 50/50 chance they will go to the western front.

2. There is no land link... so Britain cannot be counted on to move troops to the west due to the stupid AI.

3. Perhaps I ought to make them stronger...

4. only MA's and MPPS were taken out, Its not possible to stop the AI from declaring war on neutral countries. At least they do not make alliaces themselves...

5. Ill deal with that

Thanks for the test report! :)

TGW-DIV 1.3.

Current stats for British Armored Cruisers and Light Cruisers:

Armored Cruisers:

Cressy-class: 15-12-5 +2HP 2 Ships=1 Unit
Drake-class: 15-12-5 +2HP 2 Ships=1 Unit
Monmouth-class 14-11-6 1 Ship= 1 Unit
Devonshire-class 14-12-5 1 Ship= 1 Unit
Duke of Edinburgh-class 16-14-5 1 Ship= 1 Unit
Warrior-class 16-14-5 1 Ship= 1 Unit
Minotaur-class 16-14-5 1 Ship = 1 Unit

Light Cruisers:

Hermes-class 11-9-5 2 Ships= 1 Unit
Adventure-class 9-8-6 +1HP 2 Ships= 1 Unit
Forward-class 9-8-6 +1HP 2 Ships= 1 Unit
Pathfinder-class 9-8-6 +1HP 2 Ships= 1 Unit
Sentinel-class 9-8-6 +1HP 2 Ships= 1 Unit
Boadicea-class 9-8-6 +1HP 2 Ships= 1 Unit
Blonde-class 9-8-6 +1HP 2 Ships= 1 Unit
Active-class 9-8-6 +1HP 2 Ships= 1 Unit
Bristol-class 12-10-6 1 Ship= 1 Unit
Weymouth-class 12-10-6 1 Ship = 1 Unit
Chatham-class 12-10-6 1 Ship= 1 Unit

Rocoteh

I do not want the British AI start to regard the Minefields
as static Dreadnoughts. Its a great risk it will do that.


That's true. No point on letting the AI destroy itself on the mines.

That's true. No point on letting the AI destroy itself on the mines.
indeed, that would be stupid...

TGW-DIV 1.3.

Current stats for British Armored Cruisers and Light Cruisers:

Armored Cruisers:

Cressy-class: 15-12-5 +2HP 2 Ships=1 Unit
Drake-class: 15-12-5 +2HP 2 Ships=1 Unit
Monmouth-class 14-11-6 1 Ship= 1 Unit
Devonshire-class 14-12-5 1 Ship= 1 Unit
Duke of Edinburgh-class 16-14-5 1 Ship= 1 Unit
Warrior-class 16-14-5 1 Ship= 1 Unit
Minotaur-class 16-14-5 1 Ship = 1 Unit

Light Cruisers:

Hermes-class 11-9-5 2 Ships= 1 Unit
Adventure-class 9-8-6 +1HP 2 Ships= 1 Unit
Forward-class 9-8-6 +1HP 2 Ships= 1 Unit
Pathfinder-class 9-8-6 +1HP 2 Ships= 1 Unit
Sentinel-class 9-8-6 +1HP 2 Ships= 1 Unit
Boadicea-class 9-8-6 +1HP 2 Ships= 1 Unit
Blonde-class 9-8-6 +1HP 2 Ships= 1 Unit
Active-class 9-8-6 +1HP 2 Ships= 1 Unit
Bristol-class 12-10-6 1 Ship= 1 Unit
Weymouth-class 12-10-6 1 Ship = 1 Unit
Chatham-class 12-10-6 1 Ship= 1 Unit

Rocoteh
:wow: that is alot of stuff you got there! That is the kind of depth I need for TGW BRI!

nice job saeravok, i finally fixed that evil heavy_howitzer glitch, and was able to play the new one with no problems. Much better than the old (no more annoying submarine missles)

Newest report from the front line, there is no more Austira-Hungary. Hungary was totally anihilated by Russia.

In every game I play, Austria was always bullied by Russia. And their eastern territory was sacked by Russian forces. Are there any way to strengthen Austria forces to prevent that from happening

nice job saeravok, i finally fixed that evil heavy_howitzer glitch, and was able to play the new one with no problems. Much better than the old (no more annoying submarine missles)
Im glad you like it better. Hopefully we can get 1.8 to be a greater version to enjoy :)

Concerning austria... Im not sure how to historically strengthen them to be powerful enough. AI isnt smart enough to use Artillery...

:wow: that is alot of stuff you got there! That is the kind of depth I need for TGW BRI!

Sarevok,

You can use these stats in TGW BRI if you want.
There will be more stats on other nations later on.

Rocoteh

I just may. As I said, I will not rest until there is nothing left that can be done with this scenario.

I will be away again some days.
Germany will be the next nation I will do
Armored Cruiser and Light Cruiser stats for.

Rocoteh

In the recent game I had played Austria-Hungary had held its own against Russia and still is. Out of the ten games I've played, this is a first. This was on version 1.6 too.

The diplomacy factor in this scenario is horrible. Whenever you go into an allies territory they want you out. I've attempted to fix this in the editor and it has helped a little, but still.. you might want to improve a lot on it in the next version.

I haven't posted in this thread a whole lot but I will now after constantly playing this scenario over and over again. I must say this is the best WWI scenario out there. Great job Sarevok. :goodjob:

In the recent game I had played Austria-Hungary had held its own against Russia and still is. Out of the ten games I've played, this is a first. This was on version 1.6 too.

The diplomacy factor in this scenario is horrible. Whenever you go into an allies territory they want you out. I've attempted to fix this in the editor and it has helped a little, but still.. you might want to improve a lot on it in the next version.

I haven't posted in this thread a whole lot but I will now after constantly playing this scenario over and over again. I must say this is the best WWI scenario out there. Great job Sarevok. :goodjob:
1. I need suggestions on how I would keep Austria alive. Traditionally, It was the Germans that kept them alive...

2. I dont know how to deal with this. Just get an ROP from them and it should work out.

Thank you for your comments Mobilize. I have not seen you around here in a long time, so its good to have you back. Your input would be welcome in the time to make TGW the best it can possibly be.

In my games Austria loves using flamethrowers. Russia usually has a few 5-15 cossack stacks on my territory. Once I gave Austria a ROP they started attacking these stacks with the flamethrowers. The problem is that they couldn't take out all in the stack and didn't have any defencive units to support. So then on Russia's turn they easily killed the flamethowers because they have a poor defence. I'm not sure how much pressure Russia was putting on Austria, but atleast they weren't able to conquer cities from them.

I did see Austria taking some ground, but mostly from the weaker nations. They destroyed Montenegro and razed atleast one city from Rumania.
They were disastrous against Italy or atleast that's what I figured from all the elite machineguns Italy had. I'm guessing they just waste a lot of their units on those cities.
The AI has a problem attacking with too small numbers (except Russia who attacks with stacks of obsolote units).

So I don't really have suggestions, just sharing my experiences.

Ideas and comments on 1.3 are welcome.

Be sure to check out the new graphics and sounds Sarevok has added to 1.7.

Oh, and I'm very interested on the sources you are using on your navy research. Especially on the placement of the British navy since it's very well done.

I would very much want to see BC Invincible in the scenario, since it saw action in three major battles (Heligoland, Falkland's and eventually suffering a dragic loss at Jutland). It also was the lead ship of her class (Inflexible and Indomitable being the others). Edit: It actually should be in Cork where it was on trade protection duties after being re-fitted with hydraylic turrets.
There was also some others I was missing, but I guess I should start a new game with the Brits to really see what they got (my editor skills aren't really good and I get confused using it :-).

Edit: I would also suggest giving the German BC SMS Goeben to the Ottoman (You have put it in Lubeck).
Since it was stationed in the Mediterranean and sold to the Ottomans on August 16th 1914 (renamed Yavuz Sultan Selim), so it's really just a matter of days and could spice up the Meditarrean scene a bit.
Also the Magdeburg-class light cruiser SMS Breslau was sold with it (renamed Midilli). Breslau is propably too small to be added, although it had significant historical value. (Karl Dönitz served on it as a young officer before starting his U-boat career, the rest is legendary) Edit: Forgot you were doing the new classes, so maybe you could add it?
I would put them in Gallipoli.
On July 28, 1914 they were at Pola, Austria (with the Austrian Navy). But the reason I would give them straight to the Ottomans is because the AI propably wouldn't know what do with them since Germany has no ports in the Mediterranean.
The hunt for Goeben and Breslau was the first naval engament in ww1, so it would be fun to see it in this scenario.

In my games Austria loves using flamethrowers. Russia usually has a few 5-15 cossack stacks on my territory. Once I gave Austria a ROP they started attacking these stacks with the flamethrowers. The problem is that they couldn't take out all in the stack and didn't have any defencive units to support. So then on Russia's turn they easily killed the flamethowers because they have a poor defence. I'm not sure how much pressure Russia was putting on Austria, but atleast they weren't able to conquer cities from them.

I did see Austria taking some ground, but mostly from the weaker nations. They destroyed Montenegro and razed atleast one city from Rumania.
They were disastrous against Italy or atleast that's what I figured from all the elite machineguns Italy had. I'm guessing they just waste a lot of their units on those cities.
The AI has a problem attacking with too small numbers (except Russia who attacks with stacks of obsolote units).

So I don't really have suggestions, just sharing my experiences.
I think ill try to increase the strength of the austrian infantry troops, so that they can do better.

Guys, this sounds like a great scenario but, am I missing something? I don't see the file to download the scenario. All I see is the art & text file to download. Can someone point out where the scenario file is?

Thanks!
MAV

:confused: As always!

Can someone point out where the scenario file is?


It's right there like 10 lines after it, but if you really can't see it: http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=56259

that would be where it is.

Thanks, guys! Doh, I thought it was a repeat of the art and text file.

It is now where the Download counter used to be. At the very bottom of the first post.

One suggestion in the naval warfare.

Rather than to give submarine a high attack stats, is it possible to give them a bombard strength, strong enough to damage a capital ship but not enough to sink it.

Arvln

German Uboats sunk 10 BBs, 18 cruiser and 20 DDs. So I suggest either to keep the high attack value or to give them at least HEAVY leathal sea bombard. But then you must be also aware of land bombardings. That´s why I think that is isn´t such a good idea.

Adler

yeah you are right. I forgot the whole thing about land bombardings. In that case I taking back my suggestion.

I think a high attack value may be good enough.

Now that I think about it, Austria has survived probably because of the massive
railgun bombardments given to Russian stacks of infantry and cossacks. If you build plenty of railguns and siege guns as well as forts, Germany is undefeatable. My father and I have both used this strategy and beat the scenario as Germany with Emperor difficulty.

I agree that Austria's power needs to be boosted. Russia's incredible production power is too much for them to handle. I also find Italy to take Graz, which is real sad.

As for the diplomacy factor, for some reason, my father and I have been unable to find Right of Passage in the diplomacy screen. I know this is not a error for our game because we have played the scenario on two computers.

my only suggestion would be to replace a lot of the railroads in russia with roads to slow their troops from reaching the front immeadiately. I was hoping I would have enough time to take belgiuum and a small chunk of france before i had to defend my eastern border but the first turn the russians came around with a lot of cossacks and infantry. I dont know how well I will do in a fight as I also already committed most of my troops in the east to taking russian cities so my only option is to withdraw a large number of troops from the western front to the east. This is also risky as the french decided to stack all their units and three corps outside of brussels leaving their southern border completely unprotected.

Also I havent played this game very far but when going thru the editor I noticed that American intervention gives the french and british more troops. I was wondering is there anything that could be done to simulate the Bolshevik revolution in Russia? I was toying around with the Idea of creating a "Communist Russia" in the north east of the map and giving them lots of troops but making them go thru a maze of mountains before they could get out and cause a problem for russia. I am not that much into editing but maybe there is a way you could spawn a large number of red troops in russia sometime during the war.


One other thing that might be considered is making Russia's starting troops conscripts to symbolize the weakness of russia's military in the beginning of the war.

Now that I think about it, Austria has survived probably because of the massive
railgun bombardments given to Russian stacks of infantry and cossacks. If you build plenty of railguns and siege guns as well as forts, Germany is undefeatable. My father and I have both used this strategy and beat the scenario as Germany with Emperor difficulty.

This is also my strategy with Germany. Too bad the AI doesn't know how to use them.

One other thing that might be considered is making Russia's starting troops conscripts to symbolize the weakness of russia's military in the beginning of the war.

I really think they are weak enough as they are. Russia has never been a problem to me in my games.
I think it's all up to the AI when it attacks, in my three games as Germany, Russia has attacked on the first turn only once. And then it was only armored cars which were easy to get rid of.

I tried a game playing Russia myself, but failed miserably. I just couldn't come up with a good strategy to use those inferior troops they have.
They are a nuisance, nothing more.

The Revolution would be nice to be triggered, but due to restrictions on the diplomacy system in Civ3 there just isn't a good way to do it.

}{ELL/\/(), Rocoteh tried to implement the Russian revolution once in the scenario(adding a communist Russia in the north east). However, it didn't work out for him, so he abandoned that idea.

Now that I think about it, Austria has survived probably because of the massive
railgun bombardments given to Russian stacks of infantry and cossacks. If you build plenty of railguns and siege guns as well as forts, Germany is undefeatable. My father and I have both used this strategy and beat the scenario as Germany with Emperor difficulty.

I agree that Austria's power needs to be boosted. Russia's incredible production power is too much for them to handle. I also find Italy to take Graz, which is real sad.

As for the diplomacy factor, for some reason, my father and I have been unable to find Right of Passage in the diplomacy screen. I know this is not a error for our game because we have played the scenario on two computers.
I intend to severealy weaken Russian industry for 1.8. They were not industrialized so I will not make it so that they are. Austria will get a good number of additional artillery and a few MG's. I also may do a 1-pt stat increase to the austrian Infantry.

Ill also lok at ROP's (again)

my only suggestion would be to replace a lot of the railroads in russia with roads to slow their troops from reaching the front immeadiately. I was hoping I would have enough time to take belgiuum and a small chunk of france before i had to defend my eastern border but the first turn the russians came around with a lot of cossacks and infantry. I dont know how well I will do in a fight as I also already committed most of my troops in the east to taking russian cities so my only option is to withdraw a large number of troops from the western front to the east. This is also risky as the french decided to stack all their units and three corps outside of brussels leaving their southern border completely unprotected.

Also I havent played this game very far but when going thru the editor I noticed that American intervention gives the french and british more troops. I was wondering is there anything that could be done to simulate the Bolshevik revolution in Russia? I was toying around with the Idea of creating a "Communist Russia" in the north east of the map and giving them lots of troops but making them go thru a maze of mountains before they could get out and cause a problem for russia. I am not that much into editing but maybe there is a way you could spawn a large number of red troops in russia sometime during the war.


One other thing that might be considered is making Russia's starting troops conscripts to symbolize the weakness of russia's military in the beginning of the war.
Ill also be sure to severely cut up russias rail lines. They will only have 4 or 5 rail lines connecting their major cities. None will go near the front at all. I intend to weeaken russia's abilities to fight. I will also give most of their units conscrip status so that they do not wreak Germany or A-H. Concerning the bolshevik revolution, that is something that has been tinkered with by Rocoteh, but it didnt go well.

Thanks for the excellent lists of suggestions :)

I finish the game using France, and when it finish there is error. Something about the leaderhead. Try to post the screen ........

Ill also be sure to severely cut up russias rail lines. They will only have 4 or 5 rail lines connecting their major cities. None will go near the front at all. I intend to weeaken russia's abilities to fight. I will also give most of their units conscrip status so that they do not wreak Germany or A-H. Concerning the bolshevik revolution, that is something that has been tinkered with by Rocoteh, but it didnt go well.

Thanks for the excellent lists of suggestions :)

In my opinion Russia is very weak as they are now. Making them even weaker would result in Germany walking all over them and conquer Petrograd in only a few turns. Cutting the rail sounds reasonable, but making the units conscripts doesn't make sense. 6-8-1 for infantry 8-5-3 for Cossack. They couldn't hurt a fly as they are. Making them consripts would make Russia a joke.

In my opinion Russia is very weak as they are now. Making them even weaker would result in Germany walking all over them and conquer Petrograd in only a few turns. Cutting the rail sounds reasonable, but making the units conscripts doesn't make sense. 6-8-1 for infantry 8-5-3 for Cossack. They couldn't hurt a fly as they are. Making them consripts would make Russia a joke.
ok, ill just dismember their industry a bit and then it should be where they are. Thank you for your insight Laisak. :)

I finish the game using France, and when it finish there is error. Something about the leaderhead. Try to post the screen ........
Can you post a Screen? I would like to know exactly what the error is.

Load Error / FILE NOT FOUND / "art\leaderheads\HAl_CONQ.pcx"

That's what I got when I finished.
Didn't take a screen and I'm not sure what the last letter in "HAl" was. If it's a "1", lowercase "L" or lowercase "I".

that should be a 1.

Hi! I`m quite new to this forum although Ì`ve been playing CIV for about ten years or so. I have a suggestion regarding the Russian Revolution. In the Civil War scenario they created a massive native american uprising at a given time. Perhaps you could do the same to simulate the revolution. If a large number of communist rebels popped up in Russia it would severely cripple their ability to fight. I hope my idea can be of use.

About Russia, the only way to simulate the comunist revolution will be with the old CIV2 events :mad: , how much I miss them :sad: .

To make Russia realistic, because it's too powerful, it's limitating it's capacity of producction. Simulating the difference between a rural country and economy and a industrial one.

its unfortunate... I wish they still had tohse kinds of events...

I hate to bug anyone but whenever i try to play this scenerio it my game always crashes while "configuring scenario". I dont' know what is missing i've got all the dl's in the right spot can someone tell me what is wrong. :D

I hate to bug anyone but whenever i try to play this scenerio it my game always crashes while "configuring scenario". I dont' know what is missing i've got all the dl's in the right spot can someone tell me what is wrong. :D
it takes a bit to load. I would just wait it out until it finishes. It will finish after a time, I would go and watch some TV or something to pass time while it loads.

Wow! It takes that long?

yes, sadly, it takes a while to load it up due to its size.

It takes 20 mins for my computer to start the game. At first I also thought that the computer freeze or crash. Just be patience Funky2882.
I will TRY TO( I am in the middle of my finals) post the save files for some of the major power. The save is much faster to and convenient to start.
or maybe someone will be willing enough to post the save files in the forum.

It takes 20 mins for my computer to start the game. At first I also thought that the computer freeze or crash. Just be patience Funky2882.
I will TRY TO( I am in the middle of my finals) post the save files for some of the major power. The save is much faster to and convenient to start.
or maybe someone will be willing enough to post the save files in the forum.
I beleve there were some stashed away some where in this thread, but I dont know where that would be... :( Either way, they would be old files.

hi,

it's my first post in this thread so i'm sorry if what I'm going to speak about was already discussed

first of all, I've played a few turns (as Germans) and it really looks like a very good scenario

but there are some things that I found strange so prehaps you would like to hear (read, actually) them:

- as Germans, I started with a lot of Light Artillery. But I quickly realized that they can be upgraded in Berlin for free ! Is it supposed to be so ?

- all cities have barracks, but they only seem to work in Berlin. I wonder how you managed to do that ! Prehaps i'm the only one to have that bug ?

- no matter how I change the tech rate, it always takes 26 turns per tech

- the tech tree in the "Future period" was modified (a lot of new graphics) but it doesn't look to be very logic. It remainds a lot the standart C3C tech tree. Is it because this is a beta version and you want to improve it later ?

- Paris is not at the right place. I suppose you did that in order to make battles to take place in historical zones.

And here are some suggestions:
- Armies can not ne built. It's sad because it is the only way to break through a solid defensive position

- Prehaps it would be even more realistic to name major cities as they sound in the local language (ex: Moscow will be Moskva). But it's just an idea...

I played the scenario just an hour, but I really enjoyed it. Hope you'll make an even better one in the future.

hi,

it's my first post in this thread so i'm sorry if what I'm going to speak about was already discussed

first of all, I've played a few turns (as Germans) and it really looks like a very good scenario

but there are some things that I found strange so prehaps you would like to hear (read, actually) them:

- as Germans, I started with a lot of Light Artillery. But I quickly realized that they can be upgraded in Berlin for free ! Is it supposed to be so ?

- all cities have barracks, but they only seem to work in Berlin. I wonder how you managed to do that ! Prehaps i'm the only one to have that bug ?

- no matter how I change the tech rate, it always takes 26 turns per tech

- the tech tree in the "Future period" was modified (a lot of new graphics) but it doesn't look to be very logic. It remainds a lot the standart C3C tech tree. Is it because this is a beta version and you want to improve it later ?

- Paris is not at the right place. I suppose you did that in order to make battles to take place in historical zones.

And here are some suggestions:
- Armies can not ne built. It's sad because it is the only way to break through a solid defensive position

- Prehaps it would be even more realistic to name major cities as they sound in the local language (ex: Moscow will be Moskva). But it's just an idea...

I played the scenario just an hour, but I really enjoyed it. Hope you'll make an even better one in the future.
1. They posess the tech... They can upgrade, but they start with some light AT for the beginning of the war...
2. Barracks do not make Veteran troops, In fact... they dont do anything...
3. That is the minimum research time, German industry is too powerful so it is always 26...
4. The Future is an age that is not meant to be entered into. It is Civ3's original tree mostly.
5. where should paris be?
6. Welcome to WWI :), mobile warfare is thrown out the window with that little invention called the Machine gun ;)
7. If I knew what all of the major cities were named in their native language, that woulb be something i would want to add in.

Thank you for your comments, I will try to fix the errors and get 1.8 to be a better version. I hope that you continue to enjoy this scenario :)

- Sarevok

hmm perhaps you could give the mines a zone of control, that way as ships pass by them through gaps they are hit by "stray mines"

hmm perhaps you could give the mines a zone of control, that way as ships pass by them through gaps they are hit by "stray mines"
sounds cool, done :)

Sarevok,

I suggest we should close the poll (like with TKK).
Then we can cease thinking about the sabotage-voter.

Rocoteh

Sarevok,

I suggest we should close the poll (like with TKK).
Then we can cease thinking about the sabotage-voter.

Rocoteh

concerning that poll, I asked CT to close that poll for a different reason. Because the main cause of the poll votes is gone or severely weakened, That poll is a stain on my personal honor. It only has good options on it, and it makes me feel bad after the fact. I had hoped CT could delete it, but it could only be closed. I did not want to see this spotch on my honor any further.

Sarevok,

OK I see, and I respect that.
I can only say its no stain on your honor in my eyes.
The reason for it was the sabotage-voting.

When I release WWIII-US at the Battle Stations, it will
have no poll. Critique, wheter its positive or negative will
of course be welcome. A cowards sniper-fire (that is a sabotage-vote)
are never welcome!
We both know these actions have been done by one person, maybe two.
They will continue, if they get the chance.

Rocoteh

Sarevok,

OK I see, and I respect that.
I can only say its no stain on your honor in my eyes.
The reason for it was the sabotage-voting.

When I release WWIII-US at the Battle Stations, it will
have no poll. Critique, wheter its positive or negative will
of course be welcome. A cowards sniper-fire (that is a sabotage-vote)
are never welcome!
We both know these actions have been done by one person, maybe two.
They will continue, if they get the chance.

Rocoteh
Indeed. TOEWW2 will also not have a poll, nor will TROWX ( i plan a seperate thread for that one too)

Sarevok,

Can you include the new Pre-Dreadnought graphic proposed
by Adler17 when you release version 1.8?
If we in the future shall have Pre-Dreadnoughts represented
by individual units this is very important.

Rocoteh

Who has such an ill character and makes such unnecessary votes ?!? But nevertheless, Sarevok, don´t care about these crazy monkeys. That´s why I think there should be a better protection by these polls. Unless that is done polls are not very effective.

Adler

I have started to place German Armored Cruisers and Light Cruisers,
(represented by individual units).
It will be many units to research and place.
I think however that it will increase general quality.
When its have been completed I will send over a copy to Sarevok,
should he want to implement the new units in TGW-BRIG.

Rocoteh

Who has such an ill character and makes such unnecessary votes ?!? But nevertheless, Sarevok, don´t care about these crazy monkeys. That´s why I think there should be a better protection by these polls. Unless that is done polls are not very effective.

Adler
Indeed, I dont beleive anything these polls say anymore becasue of that. However, none of my future scenario will have polls with them anymore because of this.

I have started to place German Armored Cruisers and Light Cruisers,
(represented by individual units).
It will be many units to research and place.
I think however that it will increase general quality.
When its have been completed I will send over a copy to Sarevok,
should he want to implement the new units in TGW-BRIG.

Rocoteh
I just may, but for 1.9 not for 1.8. I plan to release 1.8 on June 15th. Now that school is out :D I can work at full speed. Expected Changes:

- Civilopedia edits and new entries for units.
- Austria's power slightly increased
- Russia's Rail network dismembered
- Slight stat changes
- Fixed bugs and errors in the game
- Added ZOC's to many units that needed it.
-and MUCH more!

Sarevok,

The Pre-Dreadnought graphic?

Rocoteh

Hi!

First of all, your scenario is awesome. I've won with germans (v 1.6) and I'm playing at the moment 1.7 (again with germans) - it's 21st round, however I'm close to winning (168900 pts., french, italians and 2/3 of russia is gone - difficulty: emperor).

I've some questions:

*) I would like to connect two pc over hap to play the scenario with a friend, however we can only play with 7 nations - is there a possibility to take all nations or is the only solution to play hotseat?

*) Germans have something like SunTzu, however i get only regular units in every city and can upgrade my units only in Berlin - is it a bug?

*) Artillery units first "kill" units and then buildings, population etc., however if the city have walls, the artillery shoot all (really ALL) buildings down and afterwards the units, is this also a bug? I hate to destroy those precious improvements....

Gameplay: as mentioned in the thread before, Austria is pretty weak - in both games it lost 2-3 cities on russia and 1-2 cities on italians. It's long ago I've lerned about WWI, however as I can remember Austria won something about 4 km of the italian border and fought well on the eastern front (?). Also AI never builds hvy. artillery (it's also mentioned already somewhere in thread), however I've no idea how to solve this problem. I'm always winning the game with railguns, it would be perhaps better to remove the ability "lethal bombardment" as only human player profit from it, I have NEVER seen that any of other nations had build a railgun - I've only seen 3 siege guns build by rumania and used for defensive purposes ( :rolleyes: ). However the scenario is really fun and I really appreciate your work (and it must be a lot of work)!!!

I hope I'm not talking about already known bugs, however I'm new at the forum and haven't read all of the (impressing) 81 pages...

BTW, i have US-Version, Conquest, V1.20 and I'm sorry for my insufficient english, but it's so long I've lerned it... (I'm from Austria :))

thanks in advance!

Hi!

First of all, your scenario is awesome. I've won with germans (v 1.6) and I'm playing at the moment 1.7 (again with germans) - it's 21st round, however I'm close to winning (168900 pts., french, italians and 2/3 of russia is gone - difficulty: emperor).

I've some questions:

*) I would like to connect two pc over hap to play the scenario with a friend, however we can only play with 7 nations - is there a possibility to take all nations or is the only solution to play hotseat?

*) Germans have something like SunTzu, however i get only regular units in every city and can upgrade my units only in Berlin - is it a bug?

*) Artillery units first "kill" units and then buildings, population etc., however if the city have walls, the artillery shoot all (really ALL) buildings down and afterwards the units, is this also a bug? I hate to destroy those precious improvements....

Gameplay: as mentioned in the thread before, Austria is pretty weak - in both games it lost 2-3 cities on russia and 1-2 cities on italians. It's long ago I've lerned about WWI, however as I can remember Austria won something about 4 km of the italian border and fought well on the eastern front (?). Also AI never builds hvy. artillery (it's also mentioned already somewhere in thread), however I've no idea how to solve this problem. I'm always winning the game with railguns, it would be perhaps better to remove the ability "lethal bombardment" as only human player profit from it, I have NEVER seen that any of other nations had build a railgun - I've only seen 3 siege guns build by rumania and used for defensive purposes ( :rolleyes: ). However the scenario is really fun and I really appreciate your work (and it must be a lot of work)!!!

I hope I'm not talking about already known bugs, however I'm new at the forum and haven't read all of the (impressing) 81 pages...

BTW, i have US-Version, Conquest, V1.20 and I'm sorry for my insufficient english, but it's so long I've lerned it... (I'm from Austria :))

thanks in advance!
1. Something tells me you will have to select it so that every nation will be playable. Then you would possibly be able to get it to work right.

2. Barracks dont make vet units, They actually do nothing ;) The "Art of War" wonder is The Schlieffen Plan wonder which gives some production bonuses to the city its in.

3. its a problem with the CIV3 AI, not the game itself.

I appreciate your report and suggestions for the scenario. Austria is actually planned to be stronger for 1.8. They will now be able to effectively beat up on the Russians, but with Italy you will need machine guns and to fight "stronghold" warfare to win. Concerning removing lethal BB, it sounds like a good Idea, so I will consider it. It would be good if the AI knew that building alot of different types of units instead of massing 1 or 2 types would be nice, but CIV3's AI sucks... :(

Thank you for the report :)
- Sarevok

Sarevok,

The Pre-Dreadnought graphic?

Rocoteh
what pre-dreadnought graphic?

what pre-dreadnought graphic?

The one that our old friend Wyrmshadow have done.
Its really good!

Rocoteh

The one that our old friend Wyrmshadow have done.
Its really good!

Rocoteh

our "freind" Wyrmshadow?

No, Im offcially "embargoing" all the units he makes. Anyone who insults me like that does not deserves any credit from me. I will still use his units that have already been put into my maps, but never again will I add one of his units to my scenarios. He asked for it, and I will make sure he does not see the light of day... again.

our "freind" Wyrmshadow?

No, Im offcially "embargoing" all the units he makes. Anyone who insults me like that does not deserves any credit from me. I will still use his units that have already been put into my maps, but never again will I add one of his units to my scenarios. He asked for it, and I will make sure he does not see the light of day... again.

Sarevok,

I respect that.
However, to me units are neutral.
If they are to the benefit of the players of a scenario
I have done, I do not care if the unit-creator hates me.

Rocoteh

*) I would like to connect two pc over hap to play the scenario with a friend, however we can only play with 7 nations - is there a possibility to take all nations or is the only solution to play hotseat?


I doubt it will work for MP, because TGW has more than 8 civs. MP with more than 8 playable civs doesn't seem to work. Together with others I tried that once with another scenario (playing PBEM).
If you are able to make it MP-playable please let me know. Thanks!

CellKu

Light Cruisers placed:

9-6-5 +1HP
Gazelle, Niobe, Nymphe, Thetis, Ariadne, Amazone, Medusa, Frauenlob,
Arcona, Undine.

10-8-6 +1HP
Bremen,Berlin, Danzig, Hamburg, Leipzig, Munich, Lubeck.

11-8-6 +1HP
Königsberg,Nurnberg, Stettin, Stuttgart.

10-9-7 +1HP

Dresden, Emden, Kolberg, Augsburg, Cöln, Mainz.

10-9-8 +1HP

Magdeburg, Breslau, Stralsund, Strassburg, Karlsruhe, Rostock.

Armored Cruisers:

13-11-4 +2HP

Kaiserin Augusta, Victoria Louise, Herta, Freya, Vineta, Hansa.

15-13-5 +2HP

Furst Bismarck, Prinz Heinrich, Prinz Adalbert, Friedrich Carl,
Roon, Yorck.

17-14-6 +2HP

Scharhorst,Gneisenau.

19-18-7 +2HP

Blucher.


Rocoteh

Sarevok,

I respect that.
However, to me units are neutral.
If they are to the benefit of the players of a scenario
I have done, I do not care if the unit-creator hates me.

Rocoteh
In that case, I have a plan...

I've some suggestions about gameplay:

*) Railguns should have the ability "create craters"
*) Railguns should be "wheeled", also I would check all terrains as "impassable by wheeled units" to represent their dependance on railroads (I know they can stil move on roads, but at least...)
*) Austrian Infantry should have the ability "build fort" (to increase their defense capabilities)
*) Entente and Alliance Machine Guns should have the ability "lethal bombardment" (as light machine gun - to punish those bad ideas to attack with "wounded" units)


I've also noticed something really strange about austrian AI. While the russians are raging through Gallizien, about 50 austrian infantries are marching through my land (I'm playing germans). If the russians units are before one of austrian cities, those infantries march back. Of course they come too late to prevent the russians to take the city. Although he's standing with 50 units before the city and the russian defense is weak, AI don't attack, instead it's "wandering" again through my land... Why is AI doing this??? Also the russians never attack my border cities. Instead they're marching through my land to attack cities like Metz and Strassburg (???) - this is really strange!

Meanwhile I've V1.22, perhaps it's going to be better now... :)

Wrathchild, tha AI of civ3 is weak! Hopefully Civ 4 not...

Adler

Excellent scenario. I am playing both the "long" version, and the division version, and they are both fun in their own ways.

One thing. I am pretty sure that triplanes were actually less effective than biplanes, but rather the Baron's reputation was responsible for their largescale production, not an inherent advantage over biplanes. This is why the triplanes were quickly phased-out later.

As for the poll problem, making the poll "public" would help a lot, as people with negative votes will be open for scrutiny, if they do not add anything constructive as to why the voted as they did.

One thing. I am pretty sure that triplanes were actually less effective than biplanes, but rather the Baron's reputation was responsible for their largescale production, not an inherent advantage over biplanes. This is why the triplanes were quickly phased-out later.

Some people today believe that the Red Baron made the Fokker Dr 1 more famous than it deserved, however this is not true.

The Fokker Dr 1 was a successful plane because it was small and had 3 wings and a supplementary airfoil on the undercarriage. With its size, weight and three wings, it was able to climb rapidly and easily outclimb almost any opponent. It could turn very quickly as well. The Fokker Dr 1 was a highly manoeuvrable and very agile plane. It offered good upward visibility and lacked the traditional bracing wires, which was a vulnerable point of many planes in World War One. The bracing wires could easily be shot away in combat. All these characteristics of the Fokker Dr 1 meant that it was a deadly opponent in close air-to-air combat. However, the Fokker Dr 1 was not without problems, some reasons why it did not succeed was because of the poor wing design which led to the temporary withdrawal from service by the end of October 1917. By the time this wing structural problem was fixed, the Fokker Dr 1 had already been replaced with the newer, faster Fokker D VII.

The problem with Fokker Dr 1 is quickly explained: It was a terrible plane in the hand of an inexperienced pilot but with an experienced pilot it was an almost unstoppable dogfighter -> see Richthofen.

Some people today believe that the Red Baron made the Fokker Dr 1 more famous than it deserved, however this is not true.

The Fokker Dr 1 was a successful plane because it was small and had 3 wings and a supplementary airfoil on the undercarriage. With its size, weight and three wings, it was able to climb rapidly and easily outclimb almost any opponent. It could turn very quickly as well. The Fokker Dr 1 was a highly manoeuvrable and very agile plane. It offered good upward visibility and lacked the traditional bracing wires, which was a vulnerable point of many planes in World War One. The bracing wires could easily be shot away in combat. All these characteristics of the Fokker Dr 1 meant that it was a deadly opponent in close air-to-air combat. However, the Fokker Dr 1 was not without problems, some reasons why it did not succeed was because of the poor wing design which led to the temporary withdrawal from service by the end of October 1917. By the time this wing structural problem was fixed, the Fokker Dr 1 had already been replaced with the newer, faster Fokker D VII.

The problem with Fokker Dr 1 is quickly explained: It was a terrible plane in the hand of an inexperienced pilot but with an experienced pilot it was an almost unstoppable dogfighter -> see Richthofen.
Very nice info you got here! How did you get all of this information? I would like to know more abou this kind of stuff anyway :)

Excellent scenario. I am playing both the "long" version, and the division version, and they are both fun in their own ways.

One thing. I am pretty sure that triplanes were actually less effective than biplanes, but rather the Baron's reputation was responsible for their largescale production, not an inherent advantage over biplanes. This is why the triplanes were quickly phased-out later.

As for the poll problem, making the poll "public" would help a lot, as people with negative votes will be open for scrutiny, if they do not add anything constructive as to why the voted as they did.
what do you mean... public?

I have never done it, but in OT, you will notice that some of the polls say "This is a public poll, and other posters can view your choice", and then if you click on the number of votes cast for a given category, it shows everyone that has voted for that category.

I would say about 1 in 7 or 1 in 8 poll is this way now.

Again, thanks for the scenario. It is the modders that make the game as good as it is, and I always appreciate your guys' work.

@Wrathchild. You probably know more about it than I do. I just saw a show on the discovery channel comparing the Camel to the DR1, and it said that because of the Camel's superior speed due to less drag it was probably better, but that is just the conclusion of that director/documentrist/whatever, and that is my sole source for my information.

So again, you are probably right.

I have never done it, but in OT, you will notice that some of the polls say "This is a public poll, and other posters can view your choice", and then if you click on the number of votes cast for a given category, it shows everyone that has voted for that category.

I would say about 1 in 7 or 1 in 8 poll is this way now.

Again, thanks for the scenario. It is the modders that make the game as good as it is, and I always appreciate your guys' work.
Can a mod change it so that it is like that?

I have no idea, but you might as well try it.

Excellent scenario. I am playing both the "long" version, and the division version, and they are both fun in their own ways.


Sobieski II,

Thank you for the positive comment.
I hope you will like TGW-DIV 1.3 where the naval
aspect will be expanded.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

Light Cruisers placed:

9-6-5 +1HP
Gazelle, Niobe, Nymphe, Thetis, Ariadne, Amazone, Medusa, Frauenlob,
Arcona, Undine.

10-8-6 +1HP
Bremen,Berlin, Danzig, Hamburg, Leipzig, Munich, Lubeck.

11-8-6 +1HP
Königsberg,Nurnberg, Stettin, Stuttgart.

10-9-7 +1HP

Dresden, Emden, Kolberg, Augsburg, Cöln, Mainz.

10-9-8 +1HP

Magdeburg, Breslau, Stralsund, Strassburg, Karlsruhe, Rostock.

Armored Cruisers:

13-11-4 +2HP

Kaiserin Augusta, Victoria Louise, Herta, Freya, Vineta, Hansa.

15-13-5 +2HP

Furst Bismarck, Prinz Heinrich, Prinz Adalbert, Friedrich Carl,
Roon, Yorck.

17-14-6 +2HP

Scharhorst,Gneisenau.

19-18-7 +2HP

Blucher.


Rocoteh

Excellent research!

Adler

Excellent research!

Adler

Adler17,

Thank you.

I have now also added the German Pre-Dreadnoughts.
(20-18-3 +3HP).
Dreadnoughts now have 40-36-5 +5HP.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

Rocoteh, what did you think about my suggestion of giving BC Goeben and LC Breslau to the Turks? and giving BC Invincible to the Brits?

If you missed my post, here is the link:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1895441&postcount=1591

I tested it out a bit with the Turks. It came in very handy when the Brits decided to send 5BBs and 3BCs to escort their transports full of infantry.

This is a great scenario of a great war!
But:
Railguns should be captureble, or easier to destroy (-5hp?)

I have just entered 1915 in my Divison game (about 23 turns or so, which is longer than it sounds), and everything is unfolding surprisingly well in terms of historical correctness.

One thing however: I assume the massive amount of population growth is suppose to compensate for conscription, but as the French, I had to research conscription first, and even when I did get it, unless I conscripted every turn or so (unrealistic in terms of population unrest), my population would spiral shockingly high. Now in 1915, Paris has a population of over 45, and France in total has a population of over 100 million. Perhaps a lowering of the food production is in order, although I like the idea of having it a bit faster to compensate for conscription. It is IMHO to fast right now.

One more thing as well: For the weaker power, the machinegunners should be made quite a bit weaker. As is, the Austrians and such almost never build infantry, but rather stock up on machinegunners. They have over 100 divisions (divisional game) of machinegunners, but only about 20 of all the other infantries. The game would probably have a lot more movement on the Russian front, and a more realistic setting on the Italian front, if this was remedied.

It is fun though. As the French, I held off the Germans (little British help. It is hard to get the British to use the BEF when under AI, which is expected under the great, but still limited ability of the computer AI), and all the while I was holding them off, I was building up sufficient artillery stockpiles. Once I forced back all their attacks, I was able to move in and take Strassburg, Metz and Koln. I have reinforced the Italian front. Even without the British help, it is not completely stacked the Germans way, as unlike in real life, they were completely unable to make proper strides into Russia.

Anyways, back to the game.

And one more thing, do the Zeppelins have a stealth ability or something, because I cannot for the life of me get my Nieuports to shoot one down.

And actually on further analysis, I should point out that the infantry of most nations early in 1915 is now almost exclusively machine gun. As you can imagine, this means that the only chance of there being any movement in borders, is if I am the one to attack. A mild downward tweak for the major nations, the building of separate, far weaker, units for the minor nations would be a huge boost to gameplay in my opinion, as for now I am the only one that attacks with offensive units on any appreciable scale.

NOTE: This is the Division game that I am playing. I do not know if there are the same problems in the "large scale" version.

Rocoteh, what did you think about my suggestion of giving BC Goeben and LC Breslau to the Turks? and giving BC Invincible to the Brits?

If you missed my post, here is the link:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1895441&postcount=1591

I tested it out a bit with the Turks. It came in very handy when the Brits decided to send 5BBs and 3BCs to escort their transports full of infantry.

laisak,

Yes, I missed your post after being away for a week.
On naval research: I use more than 10 sources.

Invincible: I missed to place it. It will be corrected in the next version.

Goeben and Breslau: Your solution is OK.
However I see a problem here and with cruisers that were
outside the area TGW covers when the war started:

Should we assume that Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Emden
was destroyed? Should we assume that a number of British
cruisers that were outside Europe during the war , must be that
in the scenario?
I welcome comments on these subjects and will think it
over until 1.3 is released.

Rocoteh

Sobieski II,

You are right on the population-explosion.
The problem is (from earlier experience) that is very
time-consuming to regulate all the cities to a "no-grow"
situation. I wished there was a "no-grow" option in the editor.

Its interesting what you report concerning machine-gun units.
That means AI have choosed them as "best-buy" units.
Must be corrected in 1.3.
A comment on AI "best-buy":
Yesterday I playtested WWI-Global 1.9c. By a mistake it was possible
to build Modern Marines 1915. Modern Marines is a very powerful unit
with very high shield-cost.
Now Russia AI think its a "best-buy" (despite long production-time)
and try to produce them while my German Infantry Divisions overruns Russia!

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

Fellowman,

Thank you.
Yes, I agree it should be possible to capture Railguns.

Rocoteh

>On naval research: I use more than 10 sources.

>Invincible: I missed to place it. It will be corrected in the next version.

>Goeben and Breslau: Your solution is OK.

>Should we assume that Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Emden
was destroyed? Should we assume that a number of British
cruisers that were outside Europe during the war , must be that
in the scenario?
I welcome comments on these subjects and will think it
over until 1.3 is released.


1.If you could share some of them I would be very happy. Names of good books you know or websites.

2.Yes! One of my favourite ships! :-)

3. I hope you implement it. I've had a lot of fun with Goeben while playing the Turks. Breslau was unfortunately gunned down by Russian destroyers.

4. I think outside fleets shouldn't be implemented, although some special cases could be done. In case of ships that spent majority of time in European waters and weren't too far away in the start.

1. They posess the tech... They can upgrade, but they start with some light AT for the beginning of the war...
5. where should paris be?
6. Welcome to WWI :), mobile warfare is thrown out the window with that little invention called the Machine gun ;)
- Sarevok

5. here is first French map I Googled:
http://www.rando.net/cartes/france/2frame.htm
Don't know if you agree, but I think that several french cities need to be slightly replaced (like Paris, Orleans, Tours, Lyon, ...)
And there is an empty space in the middle of France - what about adding Clermont-Ferrand there ?

1.I don't know historical facts about German artillery, but it is still strange to update them so soon and for free. And does AI understand as well that AT should be updated ?

6. OK, looks like I need to be more patient :-) I build only Rail Guns and they RULE. Of cause AI is too dumb so prehaps RG could be not so strong

And if you could update civilopedia (especially with auto-producing buildings and units with special competences), it would be really great!

Oh about the techtree.
Could it be possible to fix the civilopedia on that?
There's a number of techs that have the wrong civilopedia.
Like Chemical research. It doesn't say anything about that you can irrigate without fresh water.
I've already know it by heart, but for new players it can get really confusing. :-)

laisak,

I think you will find this link interesting:

http://www.gwpda.org/naval/n0000000.htm

Rocoteh

Thank you, Rocoteh. Interesting link indeed.

So this is the screenie of the victory crash on DIV 1.2

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads7/ottoman_win2_small.jpg

Edit: Just checked that a lot of the leaderheads are missing on the art&text file, but they are referred to on PediaIcons.txt

@Rocoteh

I figured the machineguns just needed a bit of adjusting in terms of shield cost/strength. Too bad it isn't possible to get the Germans to use artillery properly as the AI, to make the game more realistic, but that is a problem as old as Civ itself.

Anyways, back to playing the game.

Oh about the techtree.
Could it be possible to fix the civilopedia on that?
There's a number of techs that have the wrong civilopedia.
Like Chemical research. It doesn't say anything about that you can irrigate without fresh water.
I've already know it by heart, but for new players it can get really confusing. :-)

that is the main fix with 1.8

Thank you, Rocoteh. Interesting link indeed.

So this is the screenie of the victory crash on DIV 1.2

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads7/ottoman_win2_small.jpg

Edit: Just checked that a lot of the leaderheads are missing on the art&text file, but they are referred to on PediaIcons.txt
judging by that,m there is something wrong with the Belgian Leaderhead...

judging by that,m there is something wrong with the Belgian Leaderhead...

That pcx and several others don't exist in the TGW_Art_and_Text_1.7.zip

laisak,

I am sorry to hear about the crash.
I hope Sarevok can solve this problem in 1.8.

Sobieski II,

Yes, I really expect that CIV4 solves the artillery-problem and
that it also adds a strategic-warfare module.
I hope they allocate their budget for CIV4 into such aspects
instead of new graphics.

Rocoteh

laisak,

I am sorry to hear about the crash.
I hope Sarevok can solve this problem in 1.8.

Sobieski II,

Yes, I really expect that CIV4 solves the artillery-problem and
that it also adds a strategic-warfare module.
I hope they allocate their budget for CIV4 into such aspects
instead of new graphics.

Rocoteh

sadly, SOP means id have to delete every single leaderhead from the game...

sadly, SOP means id have to delete every single leaderhead from the game...

Could it be possible to create blank leaderheads to fit the missing ones?
Like just gray ones that would have the correct aspect ratio.
So you wouldn't see them, but atleast you could finish a game.

Concerning the Russian revolution.
I'm currently working on a documentary about the Finnish civil war that followed.
I'm thinking of doing a civ scenario based on it.
There's like 50/50 chance I'd have the energy to even start it and that wouldn't mean i'd actually ever finish it. Just an idea I've been playing around.
As I haven't ever worked on scenario creating, I don't even know where to start.

laisak,

That sounds like an interesting idea.
The hard, bitter Battle for Tampere had great impact
on Finlands future.
I would choose battalion-level for the Finnish civil war.

Rocoteh

I'm thinking it would be best to start with a map, but I'll create a new thread for it if I ever decide to pursue this project. This is not the place to talk about it.

I am going to wait a bit on 1.8 until everything is absolutely done. The changes and fixes to 1.8 are immense, and though most of them are done, I still want tome to finish some stuff in the civilopedia. I have small text entries for every tech in the first are "The 19th Century". For now though, the rest will be blank except for some I had already filled out. 1.8 is probably planned to be the largest addition since the release.

I am going to wait a bit on 1.8 until everything is absolutely done. The changes and fixes to 1.8 are immense, and though most of them are done, I still want tome to finish some stuff in the civilopedia. I have small text entries for every tech in the first are "The 19th Century". For now though, the rest will be blank except for some I had already filled out. 1.8 is probably planned to be the largest addition since the release.
err... I have found the bug concerning the leaderheads. I only have good news today though. The bug has been removed and I have just tsent the PM to TF concerning uploads. Expect 1.8 soon.

A little about leaders..
It's a bit funny during the game when you are negotiating a deal with "Prime Minister of Norway" for example.

Here's a quick list I could find about the missing leader names:

Norway
King:
1905-1957 : Haakon VII of Norway
Prime Minister:
1913-1920 : Gunnar Knudsen
1920-1921 : Otto Bahr Halvorsen
1921-1923 : Otto Albert Blehr
1923 : Otto Bahr Halvorsen
1923-1924 : Abraham Berge
1924-1926 : Johan Ludwig Mowinckel

Switzerland
Presidents of the Swiss Confederation:
1914 : Arthur Hoffmann
1915 : Giuseppe Motta
1916 : Camille Decoppet
1917 : Edmund Schulthess
1918 : Felix Calonder
1919 : Gustave Ador
1920 : Giuseppe Motta
1921 : Edmund Schulthess
1922 : Robert Haab
1923 : Karl Scheurer
1924 : Ernst Chuard
Foreign Minister: (Councilor heading the Department of Foreign Affairs)
1914-1917 : Arthur Hoffmann
1917 : Gustave Ador
1918-1919 : Felix-Louis Calonder
1920-1940 : Giuseppe Motta

Sweden
King:
1907-1950 : Gustav V of Sweden
Prime Ministers under the Privy Council Government:
1914-1917 : Hjalmar Hammarskjöld
1917 : Carl Swartz
1917-1920 : Nils Edén
1920 : Hjalmar Branting
1920-1921 : Louis De Geer jr.
1921 : Oscar von Sydow
1921-1923 : Hjalmar Branting
1923-1924 : Ernst Trygger
1924-1925 : Hjalmar Branting

So with Sweden and Norway I would choose the monarchs for simplicity and for Switzerland I'd go for Arthur Hoffmann as Foreign Minister.

err... I have found the bug concerning the leaderheads. I only have good news today though. The bug has been removed and I have just tsent the PM to TF concerning uploads. Expect 1.8 soon.

Sarevok,

This is very good news.


laisak,

Thank you for the list.

Rocoteh

Montenegro
King:
prince (1860–1910) king (1910–18) : Nicholas I

Thank you very much laisak! It made it just in time for the release of 1.8

Albania

Prince:
1912-1914 : Ismail Qemali
1914 : William of Wied

Prime Minister:
1914 : Turhan Pasha Përmeti
1914 : Esat Pashë Toptani
1914-1918 : Abdullah Rushdi
1918-1920 : Turhan Pasha Përmeti
1920 : Sulejman Bej Delvina
1920-1921 : Ilias Bej Vrioni
1921 : Pandeli Evangjeli
1921 : Hasan Bej Prishtina
1921-1922 : Omer Pasha Vrioni
1922 : Xhafer Ypi
1922-1924 Ahmet Zogu
1924 : Shefqet Bej Verlaci
1924 : Ilias Bej Vrioni
1924 : Fan S. Noli
1924-1925 : lias Bej Vrioni

1914 March
Prince Wilhelm, German army captain, installed as head of the new Albanian state by the International Control Commission, arrives in Albania.

September
New Albanian state collapses following outbreak of World War I; Prince Wilhelm is stripped of authority and departs from Albania.

Note: Zog didn't become King untill 1928

Bulgaria

Prime Minister:
1913-1918 : Vasil Radoslavov
1918 : Aleksandur Malinov
1918-1919 :Teodor Teodorov
1919-1923 : Aleksandur Stamboliyski
1923-1926 : Aleksandur Tsankov

Rumania

King:
1881-1914 Carol I (Charles I)
October 1914-1927 : Ferdinand

Prime Minister:
January 1914-1918 : Ion I. C. Bratianu
1918 : Alexandru Averescu
1918 : Alexandru Marghiloman
1918 :Constantin Coanda
1918-1919 : Ion I. C. Bratianu
1919 : Artur Vaitoianu
1919-1920 : Alexandru Vaida-Voevod
1920-1921 : Alexandru Averescu
1921-1922 : Take Ionescu
1922-1926 : Ion I. C. Bratianu

My choice
Albania : Prince William (or if not so picky about the scenario start date: Prime Minister Abdullah Rushdi)
Bulgaria : Prime Minister Vasil Radoslavov
Rumania : Prime Minister Ion I. C. Bratianu

Thank you very much laisak! It made it just in time for the release of 1.8

I really hope these make in aswell...

Very nice info you got here! How did you get all of this information? I would like to know more abou this kind of stuff anyway :)

I had a presentation about Richthofen in school... :) It's long ago, however I found my notices...

BTW, I have some interesting things about tanks:

Tank Mk IV
L/W/H: 8,18/4,12/2,49
Weight: 28,5t
Max speed on road: 6 km/h
Weapons: 2x 57mm cannons, 4x 7,92mm machineguns
Armor: 12mm
Crew: 7

Renault FT 17
L/W/H: 5,00/1,74/2,14
Weight: 6,5t
Max speed on road: 7,6 km/h
Weapons: 37mm cannon OR 8mm machinegun
Armor: 16mm
Crew: 2

Sturmpanzerwagen A7V
L/W/H: 7,35/3,10/3,40
Weight: 32t
Max speed on road: 12 km/h
Weapons: 57mm cannon, 6x 7mm machineguns
Armor: 30mm
Crew: 18 (!!!)

In comparision: A7V has the best armor and speed, Mk IV has the best armament and FT 17 needs only the half of ressources. However in the scenario, the best tank is FT 17 (17/10/2, cost: 140) and the worsest A7V (16/8/2, cost: 160).

Historicaly: The first tank versus tank battle took place at Villers-Bretonneux. The A7Vs fought well against the British Mark IV’s, but this was largely due the their much thicker armor. Overall, the Mark IV was a better tank and the British crews had more combat experience. Several Mark IVs were destroyed or incapacitated during the battle, but many more A7Vs broke down or were captured. The A7V was prone to breakdowns and suffered from a number of other problems like low ground clearance, poor trench-crossing ability, poor climbing ability, and underpowered engines. Between the front cannon and the first side-mounted machine guns was a gap in the A7V’s field of fire. Drivers of the A7V would drive in a zigzag pattern to keep enemies from exploiting this weakness.

Therefore I would suggest that Mk IV has the best attack, A7V the best defense and FT 17 should have poor values but should only cost 1/2 of ressources. Or something like this...

that sounds well done to me, you got me convinced. Ill manage to get these in 1.8 as TF STILL has not sent me the DL links.

Changes for 1.8:

- Large amounts of entries for the civilopedia
- Edits to leader's names
- Edits to Tank stats
- Removed Leaderhead bug
- Slight changes to unit stats
- Changes to difficulty settings and AI's extra units for higher levels
- Russian industry dismembered
- Austrian Power increased, paticuarly with additional AT.
- and MUCH more!

Hey Everyone,

First Off, Great Scenario. I was about 3-4 turns in and things were going great. I like the balance so far, and it is nice being able to read the civilopedia. I have come across a snag however. (See attached picture.) Is this error fixed in 1.07? I would have DLed 1.07 but I just realized that it was released when I came to post this reply. Any help regarding the error would be appreciated.

these bugs are fixed for TGW 1.8. Which in fact im here to post that it is now up and running. :)

YES! Ten char minimum

Great Sarevok!
Will have to try it out.

i think that it is the best update yet, and the amount of additional things is quite large.

Wohoo! I didn't think that previous games would work, but I gave it a try and no crash this time! Excellent! This is actually the first TGW game I've actually finished. I've won two and in one I just declared myself the winner. :-)

you have already won a game?

Not on 1.8
I just reloaded that DIV 1.2 game that had crashed.

My first game with Britain I declared myself the winner, because I had conquered all the central powers and the only thing to would have been to either go for the sci win or declare war on all the neutrals. (DIV 1.0 I think)
Second game was with Germany which I won with victory points, but also crashed because of the leaderhead bug. (BRI 1.6 I think)
So this is my third win on this scenario. I played as the Ottomans and won with victory points (DIV 1.2).

well, try BRI 1.8

Sarevok,

Great work!

laisak,

Congratulations! Winning with the Ottomans can not be easy.

Rocoteh

Sarevok,

Great work!

laisak,

Congratulations! Winning with the Ottomans can not be easy.

Rocoteh
most likely isnt, no heavy industry, no reinforcement buildings, and forced to eefctively fight on 4 fronts.

one of the governments is clled the second reich but the second reich was the holy roman empire from the middle ages.

No that was the first Reich. The 2nd was the time from 1867/71 to 1918. Followed by the so called 3rd Reich...

Adler

one of the governments is called the second reich but the second reich was the holy roman empire from the middle ages.

Actually, that was considered the first reich.

The Second Reich refers to the German Empire, from it's consolidation as a unified nation-state in 1871 untill the abdiction of Wilhelm II in 1918.

We all of course know what the third reich was...

Edit: Damn Adler and the distracting TV!! :-)

This may have been answered in an earlier post, but are there supposed to be proper leaderheads for each nation? I have catherine for russia and elizabeth for england, as well as hiawatha for austria. Is this right? Or is there a problem with my download?

oops, my bad

i cannot download the art and text

i also would like to see a french foreign legion unit for the french

i cannot download the art and text

CFC's upload server is currently down.

thx 4 tellin me, would of spent the whole day clicking it. When is it gonna be up

I am getting the message " missing entry in " text\pedialcon.txt":Animname_PRTO_field"

Can someone help???

I am getting the message " missing entry in " text\pedialcon.txt":Animname_PRTO_field"

Can someone help???

u need the art and text files

This may have been answered in an earlier post, but are there supposed to be proper leaderheads for each nation? I have catherine for russia and elizabeth for england, as well as hiawatha for austria. Is this right? Or is there a problem with my download?

That task is still in progress. All leaderheads are suppposed to be replaced by flags as soon as the flag creators have finished making the respective flags. (But who knows when that will be.)

CellKu

from where?, the site won't allow me to download?

from where?, the site won't allow me to download?

fairly sure the server is down

This may have been answered in an earlier post, but are there supposed to be proper leaderheads for each nation? I have catherine for russia and elizabeth for england, as well as hiawatha for austria. Is this right? Or is there a problem with my download?
there are some general problems with leaderheads, A problem I still do ont have fixed. There are 4 leaderheads at this point: France, Spain, Greece, and Germany.

so the server is down? This is kind of irritating... :mad:

im tired of waiting can some one e-mail me the art and text files

It's 23MB, so just hang in there and maybe check it out tomorrow. Patience all. :-)

No..... :( :( :(

V1.8 doesn't work on my PC.... :( I've started two games and both games screwed my PC after I was done with my turn... I don't even get a error message or something..... :( :(

No..... :( :( :(

V1.8 doesn't work on my PC.... :( I've started two games and both games screwed my PC after I was done with my turn... I don't even get a error message or something..... :( :(
sometimes the turns have long waiting times between them, patience is the key.

I have spend much time today doing research on
The Royal Navy Armored Cruisers and Light Cruisers.
(This is for TGW-DIV 1.3)
Its much more time-consuming than researching the German Navy.
It should be very accurate when its completed.

Rocoteh

I have spend much time today doing research on
The Royal Navy Armored Cruisers and Light Cruisers.
(This is for TGW-DIV 1.3)
Its much more time-consuming than researching the German Navy.
It should be very accurate when its completed.

Rocoteh
sounds very good!

I have spend much time today doing research on
The Royal Navy Armored Cruisers and Light Cruisers.
(This is for TGW-DIV 1.3)
Its much more time-consuming than researching the German Navy.
It should be very accurate when its completed.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh,

You always looking for the perfection :goodjob:

Rocoteh,

You always looking for the perfection :goodjob:

Metacomet,

Thank you.
I have counted Royal Navy strenght to 47 Armored Cruisers
and 65 Light Cruisers.
There were great differences between the classes of Light Cruisers:
Some were slow as PreDreadnoughts and other faster than Battlecruisers.

Rocoteh

Yes, if it still doesn't work after about two hours, then something may be wrong. It depends on how fast your computer it.

When I had my old slow one, it look about thirty minutes to found, capture, or raze a c it (there seems to be some large calculation at work here, probably corruption), on TETurkhan's map in the faily early middle ages!

sickness, the server is up again!!!

Metacomet,

Thank you.
I have counted Royal Navy strenght to 47 Armored Cruisers
and 65 Light Cruisers.
There were great differences between the classes of Light Cruisers:
Some were slow as PreDreadnoughts and other faster than Battlecruisers.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh,

I have different number for the royal navy:

================================================== =======

By early 1914 the Royal Navy had 18 modern dreadnoughts (6 more under construction), 10 battlecruisers, 20 town cruisers, 15 scout cruisers, 200 destroyers, 29 battleships (pre-dreadnought design) and 150 cruisers built before 1907.

After the outbreak of the First World War, most of the Royal Navy's large ships were stationed at Scapa Flow in the Orkneys or Rosyth in Scotland in readiness to stop any large-scale breakout attempt by the Germans. Britain's cruisers, destroyers, submarines and light forces were clustered around the British coast.

The Mediterranean fleet, of two battlecruisers and eight cruisers were based in Gibralter, Malta and Alexandria. These were used during the operations to protect Suez and the landings at Gallipoli. There were also naval forces in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.


================================================== ======

Metacomet,

Thank you.
I have counted Royal Navy strenght to 47 Armored Cruisers
and 65 Light Cruisers.
There were great differences between the classes of Light Cruisers:
Some were slow as PreDreadnoughts and other faster than Battlecruisers.

Rocoteh
I might "steal" DIV's stuff for BRI ok Rocoteh? ;)

sickness, the server is up again!!!
Well, thats good news!

Rocoteh,

I have different number for the royal navy:

================================================== =======

By early 1914 the Royal Navy had 18 modern dreadnoughts (6 more under construction), 10 battlecruisers, 20 town cruisers, 15 scout cruisers, 200 destroyers, 29 battleships (pre-dreadnought design) and 150 cruisers built before 1907.

After the outbreak of the First World War, most of the Royal Navy's large ships were stationed at Scapa Flow in the Orkneys or Rosyth in Scotland in readiness to stop any large-scale breakout attempt by the Germans. Britain's cruisers, destroyers, submarines and light forces were clustered around the British coast.

The Mediterranean fleet, of two battlecruisers and eight cruisers were based in Gibralter, Malta and Alexandria. These were used during the operations to protect Suez and the landings at Gallipoli. There were also naval forces in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.


================================================== ======

Metacomet,

The reason is probably that your sources are counting ships
that had been removed from the fleet.
The correct number of Pre-Dreadnoughts are 39.
I have all their names, positions and so on.

Rocoteh

I might "steal" DIV's stuff for BRI ok Rocoteh? ;)

Sarevok,

Yes, of course.
I will send over a copy of the biq-file, when the
work has been completed.

Rocoteh

I think you guys should be working more with each other. BRI and DIV have developed in to very different scenarios.

I think you guys should be working more with each other. BRI and DIV have developed in to very different scenarios.

laisak,

You may have a point there.
However, considering the very large difference in
age, I think cooperation is good.

Rocoteh

Just that for example the upcoming naval expansion kinda ruins the original idea of the DIV version. The way I see there is going to be a lot more units to move on it.

You are both doing incredible improvements to the scenarios, but those don't get included in the other version. I would very much like to see the naval expansion in BRI and all the new graphics Sarevok has added in BRI to be included in DIV.
And it's hard to choose which version to play now since both of them have something the other one doesn't. One version would be so much simpler. But the choise is yours.

Metacomet,

The reason is probably that your sources are counting ships
that had been removed from the fleet.
The correct number of Pre-Dreadnoughts are 39.
I have all their names, positions and so on.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh,

I'm sure you right :goodjob: . I just told you because the numbers were really different.

Just one thing, I don't know if I'm wrong but the naval warfare was a secondary thing in the WWI, and we can not implement the important thinks like the blockade can not be implemented in the game. BTW I don't really like the naval warfare, I prefer land wars.

laisak and Metacomet,

Should your opinion represent the majority.
That is: There is no need for a naval expansion and a TGW-DIV 1.3,
I will of course cancel the project.

When it comes to the terms of cooperation between Sarevok and me:

It must be up to Sarevok and me to determine those terms.
Cooperation between scenario-creators are NOT common, and
there are many obvious reasons for that.
I hope the cooperation between me and Sarevok will continue
also in the future.
When a joint project or a long term cooperation breaks down,
such as the cooperation between Procifica and me, its seldom positive.

Rocoteh

I didn't mean I don't want the naval expansion. I'm really excited about it.
I'm just saying that wasn't the purpose of DIV to have fever units?
I first started using DIV because it had fewer units, but I've grown to using a lot of units. So it really doesn't bother me anymore. I'm just saying I would want to see one scenario and all the additions done to it. But I understand if it isn't possible.

So Rocoteh, continue on the naval expansion. I just hope to see it in BRI also.

laisak,

Maybe it will mean to many units.
Mainly due to the sheer size of the Royal Navy.
I will do a second analyse on the project.

Rocoteh

I am a fan of naval combat and so I wish more ships. So I do not have any problem with these additional ships. As ships can hardly present a division on land (except destroyer flotillas) there is no contradiction.
Rocoteh, keep up the great work.

Adler

I'm wishing I had never said anything. :-)
Rocoteh, don't deny us the naval expansion! :-(
I also love the navy aspect you have created!

And if you concider it. People who don't want the new navy units can play the 1.2 version.
So really the 1.3 would be just for us navy fans.
You can even call it "DIV 1.3 - navy expansion" etc and continue to host the old 1.2 also.

Adler17,

Thank you.
I will probably present it as TGW-DIV1.3 Naval.Exp. and
keep 1.2 for download for those who thinks the new version
has to many units.

Edit: Note that this was posted at the same time as laisaks
post. We seems to have had the same solution in mind.

Rocoteh

Great minds think alike as they say. :-)

Is the poll open again? I see two new votes.
Is it public now or still the old anonymous?

laisak and Metacomet,

Should your opinion represent the majority.
That is: There is no need for a naval expansion and a TGW-DIV 1.3,
I will of course cancel the project.

When it comes to the terms of cooperation between Sarevok and me:

It must be up to Sarevok and me to determine those terms.
Cooperation between scenario-creators are NOT common, and
there are many obvious reasons for that.
I hope the cooperation between me and Sarevok will continue
also in the future.
When a joint project or a long term cooperation breaks down,
such as the cooperation between Procifica and me, its seldom positive.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh,

My coment was not a complain, it just was an observation. Your ideo of TGW-DIV1.3 Naval.Exp. and keep 1.2 for download it's perfect. I just don't enjoy naval warfare, but don't do that to anything against the ones who love a naval warfare.

Is the poll open again? I see two new votes.
Is it public now or still the old anonymous?
im going to PM CT to see if she can make it public. Then you will all get to see who voted against the scenario.

Rocoteh,

My coment was not a complain, it just was an observation. Your ideo of TGW-DIV1.3 Naval.Exp. and keep 1.2 for download it's perfect. I just don't enjoy naval warfare, but don't do that to anything against the ones who love a naval warfare.
Well if the settings were right naval warfare is very fun for me. Before I came here and started showing the things I created to the world, all of my scenarios for other games I released only for myself. It was the thing I did and with some games, it continues. I think it should be known that although I enjoy showing my scenarios to the world, I am perfectly content not to.

Rocoteh,

I'm sure you right :goodjob: . I just told you because the numbers were really different.

Just one thing, I don't know if I'm wrong but the naval warfare was a secondary thing in the WWI, and we can not implement the important thinks like the blockade can not be implemented in the game. BTW I don't really like the naval warfare, I prefer land wars.

i also personally like land warfare to naval. i mostly use navies to bombard and will only go into naval battles if i have to. Also my game keeps crashing with an error message about russian pedialcons, does that also have to do with leader heads.

nvm, i got it working

nvm, i got it working
good, as all bugs were fixed in 1.8

Rocoteh,

My coment was not a complain, it just was an observation. Your ideo of TGW-DIV1.3 Naval.Exp. and keep 1.2 for download it's perfect. I just don't enjoy naval warfare, but don't do that to anything against the ones who love a naval warfare.

Metacomet,

I did not saw it as a complaint.
I do however reflect over what the Main Posters like you,
Adler17, laisak and CellKu write here (and others to of course).
A solution have been found, so I will proceed with the work.

Rocoteh