What Is planned for 2.0 is a great many things. I have already fixed a great deal of bugs that I personally pointed out during my test of 1.8. I have already mentioned that 2.0 will have all the leaderheads I can put in. I still require some but in general they are all done :). Though that will be the most obvious feature, The addition of possible alterations in the tech tree might occur as well. Because of the problem with techs, I may consider an entirely different approach and may for a later time re-create the tree altogether. The other major addition is to add more units to the game that can be used. I hope that if someone could play 1.9 and see if the AI makes more artillery or whatever (turn on debug mode and find out what theyre doing) then I would like it. I want to find a way to force the AI to use artillery for at least a support role and mabye an offensive role as well. This will be extremely difficult but I hope it can occur.

BTW, TGW has joined ACW and TOE in the 2000 post club :D

Tried the French on 1.9 yesterday for 4 turns. The Germans completely sucked, they did not conquer a single city even against the Belgians! OTOH I captured Metz on a counterattack and am now staging my next offensive, most likely Strassburg. If I see this correctly I now own the only Steel the Germans own and they are most likely screwed by that insofar as they cannot build decent artillery any more.

The Germans did not attack in numbers and did not use artillery, they bombed with their Zeppelins though.

I somewhat reduced my technological disadvantage by spying on the Germans and can now produce Siege Guns, decided not to go for Flamethrowers, too costly (needs 2 techs).

It seems to me that the Germans suffer the problem of all AIs fighting a 2 front war in that they shuffle troops back and forth between the fronts.

On the naval front, the Germans appeared in full strength at the Dutch coast, much too strong for my atlantic fleet, the British seem to have suffered some losses so far.

Frodo 05,

I really hope Firaxis improve AI:s way of handling artillery in CIV 4.
As mentioned before I also hope they incorporate an
Strategic Warfare module.
Considering the great role resources have in CIV 3 such a
module is maybe what is most needed for CIV 4.

Rocoteh

What Is planned for 2.0 is a great many things. I have already fixed a great deal of bugs that I personally pointed out during my test of 1.8. I have already mentioned that 2.0 will have all the leaderheads I can put in. I still require some but in general they are all done :). Though that will be the most obvious feature, The addition of possible alterations in the tech tree might occur as well. Because of the problem with techs, I may consider an entirely different approach and may for a later time re-create the tree altogether. The other major addition is to add more units to the game that can be used. I hope that if someone could play 1.9 and see if the AI makes more artillery or whatever (turn on debug mode and find out what theyre doing) then I would like it. I want to find a way to force the AI to use artillery for at least a support role and mabye an offensive role as well. This will be extremely difficult but I hope it can occur.

BTW, TGW has joined ACW and TOE in the 2000 post club :D

great job i'm waitin for 2.0

as far as I know, AI better uses immobile Artillery. I had seen this many times in the past, and I created a small scenario with a custom Immobile Radar Artillery. AI used it pretty well, however they never built it (prehaps too costly for the construction algo ?)

you could place a lot of weak immobile arty (like bunkers ?) around "La Line Maginot" and some in Russia

and I must be annoying, but if you could better place French cities, it would be great

absolute sad,

Your ideas concerning artillery are interesting.

Regarding placement of the French cities:
Which cities do you think should be corrected?

Rocoteh

you could place a lot of weak immobile arty (like bunkers ?) around "La Line Maginot" and some in Russia

There was no "Maginot Line" during the First World War. There were lines of fortresses around Nancy and Verdun, but they did not become the integrated (and useless) Maginot Line until the interbellum years.

There was no "Maginot Line" during the First World War. There were lines of fortresses around Nancy and Verdun, but they did not become the integrated (and useless) Maginot Line until the interbellum years.
There were however border fortresses.

The strongest French forts were at Verdun, Toul, Nancy, Epinal and Belfort.

Germanys most fortified cities (West Front) were Metz and Strassburg.

Rocoteh

The strongest French forts were at Verdun, Toul, Nancy, Epinal and Belfort.

Germanys most fortified cities (West Front) were Metz and Strassburg.

Rocoteh
Indeed, a more precise version of my explanation :)

TGW-DIV 1.2a has been released.

Changes includes:

New units:

1914 Submarine Flotilla
1914 Destroyer Flotilla
German Marine Division

A German Machine Gun Unit has been added, with the same
stats as The Alliance Machine Gun. Cost still 110 shields.
Shield cost for the "old" Alliance Machine Gun unit now 180.
This is to prevent Austria-Hungary AI to produce the 120+
Machine Guns forces that have been reported.

Stats changed. Including: Heavy increased shield-cost for
Railgun and Marines.

Pollution removed.

"Build often" changed.

A Submarine Yard have been added at Kiel.
It produces 1914 Submarine Flotilla at frequency 3.

Important: You must have installed TGW 1.6-1.9 in order
to play TGW-DIV 1.2a.

Link to download:

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

Rocoteh

Sounds great. Too bad that I have little time and my PC in repair. My play PC.

Adler

Adler17,

I am looking forward to your comments when you have
time to play TGW-DIV 1.2a.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

Cannot play TGW (1.19) because the zip blocks the extract after 75% (units, arts,... zip). Never had that problem even with larger files before so it might be file-related. Anybody has that pb as well ?
Actually I had the same pb with 1.14 ,only version I tried (or intended to try) before, except it stopped at a different percentage (cannot remember which one though).

LouLong,

I am sorry to hear that.
Do you have the French version of CIV3?
In such a case that maybe can explain the problem.
Few problems have been reported with 1.9 so far,
so at moment that is the best theory I have.

I am really glad to hear from you and I hope there is
a way to solve the problems with loading.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

Great to hear that DIV 1.2a is released! The changes sound very good! :) I have already downloaded it. However, as my time is quite limited these days, I can't really playtest it right now. But I am looking forward to getting to it! :)

CellKu

CellKu,

I am glad to hear that you have downloaded 1.2a.

I am looking forward to your comments when you have had
time to playtest it.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

I have English version of Civ3 and C3C.
Besides the problem is extracting the files from the Zip. The extraction is incomplete because it stops at 75% so it does not concern the Civ3 game at all.
Like when it encounters a certain file it stops extracting. ????!!

LouLong,

I see.
As mentioned before, crash-reports have been few so far on TGW 1.9.
Do you use Win.Zip. to extract the files?

Best Regards

Rocoteh

To those who have downloaded TGW 1.9:

If you have problems with the scenario to run:
Please report it.

I have English version of Civ3 and C3C.
Besides the problem is extracting the files from the Zip. The extraction is incomplete because it stops at 75% so it does not concern the Civ3 game at all.
Like when it encounters a certain file it stops extracting. ????!!
That is a little odd... I have never heard of that before in any case. I personally would check your computer for viruses. The times ive been coming here the last few days ive been getting a number of those "white boxes" the computer usually gives when something goes really wrong. I did a Virus scan yesterday and found 2 forms of the Trojan Horse Virus. Theyre gone now, and I have PM'ed TF about it. I think CFC might somehow be giving my computer this virus as it says something about a Trojan Horse in this "white box".

As Rocoteh said though, If you do not have winzip, that would be a problem. I cannot think of any reason why that would happen otherwise or if your computer was infected in some way.

I had some thoughts on including an American CIV
with 2-3 East Coast cities in 1.2a (to replace the current reinforcements).

However I decided to wait with that solution, since it will
take much playtest time.

I also want to see more reports on how the current system works
with regard to the American reinforcements.

Rocoteh

I had some thoughts on including an American CIV
with 2-3 East Coast cities in 1.2a (to replace the current reinforcements).

However I decided to wait with that solution, since it will
take much playtest time.

I also want to see more reports on how the current system works
with regard to the American reinforcements.

Rocoteh
sounds good. I think by makinng it so the AWE wonder can only be built where the french reinforcement buildings are it made sure the french would make it :)

Yes, that is good.
However, its important that we get more info.
on how many turns (at average) AI France holds out
versus an human player.

Rocoteh

I am about to test 1.2a to see if it will work succesfully with 2.0 as all the new units (there are only 2, dont get excited) are now in the game. Hopefully it will work perfectly. If it does not, Myself and Rocoteh will deal with it before 2.0 is released.

Confirmed: TGW-DIV 1.2a is fully compatible with TGW 2.0

Confirmed: TGW-DIV 1.2a is fully compatible with TGW 2.0

That is very good news!

Rocoteh

I agree.

Any last requests for changes to TGW 2.0? Ill PM TF tommorow.

There was no "Maginot Line" during the First World War. There were lines of fortresses around Nancy and Verdun, but they did not become the integrated (and useless) Maginot Line until the interbellum years.

yes of cause :) . It was just a way of speaking so that everyone can understand!


Regarding placement of the French cities:
Which cities do you think should be corrected?

I was the most surprised by Paris, Orleans and Tours. Paris could be moved 2 tiles west and Orleans is 100 km south of Paris. But if you have a map of France, you'll be able to see by your-self.

In my game I didn't managed to do anything with Russians. I had a huge army (150 Inf + 50 Cav + 30 Art) but even Austria was too strong ! Russians Infantry is very weak and a lot of Austrian defenders were promoted Elite so it became hopeless.

Just a question: when tech trade is forbidden, do you know if it is still possible to steal it with a spy ? I've tried once but it has failed and I had no more money :sad:

absolute sad,

Paris,Orleans and Tours should be moved.
I agree on that.

On techs:
It should still be possible to steal them with a spy.

Rocoteh

No decision yet,
but 1.3 NavalExp. will probably be a "biq-download".
Thus not the "big" download that have been discussed.

Rocoteh

yes of cause :) . It was just a way of speaking so that everyone can understand!




I was the most surprised by Paris, Orleans and Tours. Paris could be moved 2 tiles west and Orleans is 100 km south of Paris. But if you have a map of France, you'll be able to see by your-self.

In my game I didn't managed to do anything with Russians. I had a huge army (150 Inf + 50 Cav + 30 Art) but even Austria was too strong ! Russians Infantry is very weak and a lot of Austrian defenders were promoted Elite so it became hopeless.

Just a question: when tech trade is forbidden, do you know if it is still possible to steal it with a spy ? I've tried once but it has failed and I had no more money :sad:
Concerning Russia, they are meant to be that weak. Russia's military staff's tactics of WWI was little more than hurling waves of solders at their enemies that merely returned as corpses. Only the Units under Brusilov actually did some serious damage.

Since there's a few threads on city placement,

Paris should actually go one tile north to 47,75. I'm not sure why it looks like it should go west. Maybe some of the other cities are off.

Nantes -> 36,78 (1 square NE)
Bordeax -> 37, 87 (1 square SE) It wouldn't be a coastal city anymore. If you want it to be, it's current locatoin could be justified as coast.
Marseilles -> 50, 96 (2 squares SE). Nice could probably be deleted and a different town west of Marseilles added.
And Paris of course. Those are the only French cities on the original map.

The rivers should be as accurate as can be done with the grid, so if you have a map with rivers and cities on it, it should help place them.

I got the map made into a .pdf file which compressed it down to 8Mb. Is there a file size limit for uploads?

- Aanar

Aanar140,

Thank you for the comments on city placement.

If the file is 8MB , I think you must contact Thunderfall.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

I was not able to play it now but I thought about the submarine flottilla which is built every 3rd turn in Kiel. I think every 2nd turn would be better because of the success the Uboats had but I don´t know the balances.

Adler

I was not able to play it now but I thought about the submarine flottilla which is built every 3rd turn in Kiel. I think every 2nd turn would be better because of the success the Uboats had but I don´t know the balances.

Adler

Adler17,

If there will be new version of TGW-DIV I think
every 2nd turn is OK, should playtest reports indicate it.
The 1914 submarine flotilla (representing 5 submarines) is
a rather powerful unit with move 5 and
Attack 20, Defense 7, HP+3.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

TGW 2.0 is up and running :)

Changes:

- Leaderheads for most nations
- Significant changes to stats
- New units
- Additional ballance made
- Fixed civilopedia errors
- New civilopedia Icons
- and MUCH more!

Sarevok,

First download.

Great work!

Rocoteh

Yes, that is good.
However, its important that we get more info.
on how many turns (at average) AI France holds out
versus an human player.

Rocoteh

Hello,

tried the Germans yesterday in DIV 1.2a and the French did not do very well. On the first turn I overran all of Belgium, the 1.2 Border Guards are worse than useless, instead of slowing me down they gave me a leader!! So after my "standard" opening of taking Belgium in the first week I added Calais as I had an additional army.

The French staged a weak counterattack at Metz losing some 5 units and another counterattack at Calais losing 2 armies (ouch!).

Second week I attacked Arras and took it without losses, a few armies were still available the remainder recovering strength at home. As I had a few artillery rounds left I thought I'd fire a few shots at Reims. It was a travesty, Reims was defended by 2 (two!!) units. One was lethally bombarded by a Siege Gun and the other down to 1 HP and taken out by a cavalry. Reims was subsequently reinforced by rail movement and had a garrison of 3 MG and 3 INF. I am now 2 squares from Paris.

On their second turn, the french staged a MASSIVE attack at Reims, but without artillery support. Unfortunately you are dead in this scenario without artillery support, so they lost dozens of units (stopped counting). In return I got all 6 units promoted to elite, a leader created, but the French managed to kill off 3 elites. Then they ran out of steam and I still had half of my garrison.

A few issues I spotted here:

AI does not use artillery effectively. Therefore, LLB becomes a killer, because only the player uses it and not the AI. Suggestion: Remove LLB from all artillery pieces.

Schlieffen Plan works like a charm. The AI does not react to the player and the cities in the north (Calais, Arras, Reims) are weakly defended and easily overrun. Suggestion: Make immobile garrison troops and put several of those in every major city close to the border.

Cavalry forces still imbalanced (9-3-3 Germany vs. 4-3-3 France). Suggestion: make them more balanced.

AI stupidly mixes Cavalry, Infantry and Armored Cars in Armies making them very weak due to the weak French/Russian cavalry. I think if the armies would have been all A INF the counterattack at Calais would have been sucessful and somewhat slowing the German offensive in the North of France. Suggestion: Start the scenario with the armies fully loaded with A INF.

BEF nowhere to be seen. Where are they? They should appear BEFORE the Germans reach the gates of Paris. Suggestion: BEF should start around the Belgian-French border.

Experience system very much favours the defender, as they get 2 steps with each promotion. Of course the attacker gets it as well, BUT most of them only get to attack once while the defender can defend many times. Mlitaristic (which gives double the promotions) gets twice as strong as a trait. This system is also one of the reasons why Artillery is so important in this scenario.
Suggestion: Remove militaristic as a trait for the Germans or reduce the likelihood for promotion.

Cheers, Frodo_05

Frodo_05,

Thank you for the report and comments.

The Border Guards was placed for one reason only:

In version 1.1 AI made Right Of Passage agreements,
and then made strange moves.

German Cavalry Divisions were larger than French Cavalry Divisions.
A French Cavalry Division numbered 5 400 men with 8 Guns
and 6 Machine Guns.
Thus a Brigade-size unit to be used for reconnaissance.

Remove LLB from all Artillery-units.

That sounds like a good idea.

More immobile garrisons.

I will consider that.

"Start the scenario with the armies fully loaded with A INF."

I will consider that also.

Redeploy BEF.

Yes I agree. There seems to a need for that.

"Suggestion: Remove militaristic as a trait for the Germans or reduce the likelihood for promotion."

I have to think over which effect that should give
on play-balance.

Rocoteh

Good report Frodo!

Good report Frodo!

I want to add though, that proposed changes
probably will have to be done in TGW 2.1, since the
low response (in terms of downloads 1.2a) does not
motivate anymore versions of TGW-DIV.

Rocoteh

Frodo_05,

Thank you for the report and comments.
Rocoteh

My pleasure :D



The Border Guards was placed for one reason only:
In version 1.1 AI made Right Of Passage agreements,
and then made strange moves.
Rocoteh

No problem with that, but then they should be REAL units not 1.2 cannon fodder


German Cavalry Divisions were larger than French Cavalry Divisions.
A French Cavalry Division numbered 5 400 men with 8 Guns
and 6 Machine Guns.
Thus a Brigade-size unit to be used for reconnaissance.
Rocoteh

Then IMHO the French should receive fewer hitpoints rather than lower stats. Lower stats are too imbalancing. German cavalry can kill wounded INF (9 attack vs. 11/13 defence IIRC) while French can hardly do so (4 attack vs 11/15 defence).

"No problem with that, but then they should be REAL units not 1.2 cannon fodder"

Frodo_05

There existed no such powerful Border-units.

"Then IMHO the French should receive fewer hitpoints rather than lower stats. Lower stats are too imbalancing. German cavalry can kill wounded INF (9 attack vs. 11/13 defence IIRC) while French can hardly do so (4 attack vs 11/15 defence)."

Frodo_05

That would be unrealistic, since the German units had 130% more
firepower than the French units.

Its obvious you did not like 1.2a.
I can only hope you like 2.0 more. That is the positive
aspect with 2 versions of the same scenario.

Rocoteh

First I´m sorry to hear you won´t continue TGW DIV. I liked it a bit better than Brig. Good report Frodo. You found the biggest weaknesses of the AI for a modern scenario. These problems are only handeable with a new patch or with civ IV.

Adler

First I´m sorry to hear you won´t continue TGW DIV. I liked it a bit better than Brig. Good report Frodo. You found the biggest weaknesses of the AI for a modern scenario. These problems are only handeable with a new patch or with civ IV.

Adler

Adler17,

The final decision is yet to be taken.
As I pointed out in a PM to Sarevok
its 95%.
I do care what the Main Posters think about it.
(And what other Posters think also, of course.)
Main Posters = Adler17, CellKu, laisak and Metacomet.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh, I hope that you will rethink your decision to give up TGW-DIV. It is a very valuable scenario, expecially for those who feel a bit lost with very large armies. And it has it's own special features (e.g. the naval aspect you built in). So TGW-DIV has it's own value beside TGW-BRI.

That the feedback is rather low these days might be because of the summer months and the vacation time. So, feedback might come more slowly than usual. As for myself, I am really looking forward to play the new versions. However, I am not at home right now (where my pc + civ is) and can follow the thread only every now and then. Thus, I am unable to give some feedback during the next days. But I would be deeply sorry if that would make you quit making TGW-DIV. I am big fan of both scenarios and would really like to see them both getting forward! :)

Rocoteh wrote:
I want to add though, that proposed changes probably will have to be done in TGW 2.1, since the low response (in terms of downloads 1.2a) does not motivate anymore versions of TGW-DIV.

DON´T! :eek:

TGW-Div. is great and I found it more fun and challenging than the brigade version!
One prob just is, that the turns still take a long time and I have a job, a sex-life, some friends and I like to drink alot :crazyeye: :) , which means: 1-3 turns a day is MAX I can normaly play. I´m still busy with my first game from last version. I could post some more feedback for that, but it would be out of date .... Also please think about, that if I wanna start a game I have to wait for 15 mins till its loaded, that could be easily 30 mins at weaker engines - so people have to plan when thez start a new game :)
So please, just stay patient, I´m sure feedback and glorification :cool: will come soon.
Personally I wanna finish my game (should I pray for a rainy weekend?! :eek: ) and THEN download the new version and try it.

Hmmmm .... that would mean I´ll play 1.2a in about 6 weeks :mischief:
K - just a few more turns and then the upgrade.

Frodo 05:

Remove militaristic from germans?
No, that seems totally wrong!

Most problems you spoke about, I encountered too in my game, but it seems to be probs of the horrible bad AI of Civ3 and not the scenario.

Im glad to see everyone appreciates BRI version :rolleyes:

CellKu,

Thank you.
Yes I will rethink my decision.
I am going off-line 2 hours from now and will be
away 10 days.
After all the the number of downloads have to be
limited as long as it is a "biq" download dependant
on a previous install of TGW.

waTTe,

"I´m sure feedback and glorification will come soon."

waTTe

10 months with the ACW-scenario gave me enough of glory :)


Sarevok,

The 73 "one of the best" votes is a clear evidence that TGW - BRI
is very popular.
I am sure comments on 2.0 will come soon.

Rocoteh

The thing about me is that I can make decisions in seconds. What must be understood is that at the snap of a finger I could leave CFC. I am not doing this for any self-profit.

The thing about me is that I can make decisions in seconds. What must be understood is that at the snap of a finger I could leave CFC. I am not doing this for any self-profit.

You have pointed that out several times.
I do not think anyone doubts you.

Edit: OK, I will proceed with TGW-DIV.
Clarification: Even if I did reflect over the future for TGW-DIV, I did
not plan to give up support for TGW or the TGW-thread in general!

Rocoteh

Thank you Rocoteh. Sarevok your version is GREAT. Nothing less. Just GREAT. Nevertheless I like DIV a very bit more. But the relation is VEEEERRRYYY little.

Adler

The thing about me is that I can make decisions in seconds. What must be understood is that at the snap of a finger I could leave CFC. I am not doing this for any self-profit.

please don't stop the scenario. It's pretty obvious that TGW by any means are the greatest scenario I have ever played, and it is a live scenario. Other scenario died after like 5 updates but this one is alive in its tenth version. By looking the replies and views statistic, it's one of the highest.Two Thumbs Up


In the 2.0 which I have just played it for a while 20 turns at most as Germany. I realized that the austrian able to defend herself :D although with a little help from the mighty German. One interesting moment that suprise me is that Denmark annoyed with me because of the naval mine. And accidentally agree to retreat the units; therefore, the mines are moved into new position which made the pretty mush useless.Strangely enough it only occurs for the Strong Mine(a/d/m-1/1000/0) and no problem for the weaker version.I recalled this thing was never happen in the 1.8 that I previously played as Germany.

Oh one more thing I can't build submarine, anyone know why?

Arvln

You have pointed that out several times.
I do not think anyone doubts you.

Edit: OK, I will proceed with TGW-DIV.
Clarification: Even if I did reflect over the future for TGW-DIV, I did
not plan to give up support for TGW or the TGW-thread in general!

Rocoteh
Yes I have pointed it out many times. However I only point it out when I feel like it should be pointed out.

please don't stop the scenario. It's pretty obvious that TGW by any means are the greatest scenario I have ever played, and it is a live scenario. Other scenario died after like 5 updates but this one is alive in its tenth version. By looking the replies and views statistic, it's one of the highest.Two Thumbs Up


In the 2.0 which I have just played it for a while 20 turns at most as Germany. I realized that the austrian able to defend herself :D although with a little help from the mighty German. One interesting moment that suprise me is that Denmark annoyed with me because of the naval mine. And accidentally agree to retreat the units; therefore, the mines are moved into new position which made the pretty mush useless.Strangely enough it only occurs for the Strong Mine(a/d/m-1/1000/0) and no problem for the weaker version.I recalled this thing was never happen in the 1.8 that I previously played as Germany.

Oh one more thing I can't build submarine, anyone know why?

Arvln
Im not sure why you cant build subs. There are a few key differences with 2.0 that make the game very different but I dont recall having submarines be very different.

Since Rocoteh is gone, I might temporarily take over DIV. I will however make no "permanent updates", meaning that 1.2a will still be highly avalible. I will most likely make new versions off an additional post in this thread. When he comes back, if he likes what ive done, good. But if not he will still have the old version of before.

I intend to make no changes to the units on the map or the OOB of that scenario. What I may do however is to fix the graphics for CIV so that they look like how they should look. However, this will not be a large scale project and I do not want to deal with any large-scale edits. My primary concern is other things outside of TGW and CFC in general, though I will come here reguarly.

So am I to assume no one is interested?

Pardon, but interested in what?

Adler

... The scenario.

"Then IMHO the French should receive fewer hitpoints rather than lower stats. Lower stats are too imbalancing. German cavalry can kill wounded INF (9 attack vs. 11/13 defence IIRC) while French can hardly do so (4 attack vs 11/15 defence)."

Frodo_05

That would be unrealistic, since the German units had 130% more
firepower than the French units.

Its obvious you did not like 1.2a.
I can only hope you like 2.0 more. That is the positive
aspect with 2 versions of the same scenario.

Rocoteh

Hello Rocoteh,

Actually I like 1.2a a lot, it has some very unique concepts like active and reserve divisions and does a good job of giving you a WW1 feeling (like hurling units against fortified defenders being sucide). Artillery RULEZ in this scenario, it's just a pity the AI uses it so badly.

On the other issue size=attack value I beg to differ. If we take a look at how CIV3 handles different unit stats we see the following:

Unit firepower = Attack value. Bowman = 2, Tank = 16, no doubt about that.
Unit quality = hitpoints. Conscripts = 2, Elite = 5, thats clear also.

But then what does CIV3 if we make a unit BIGGER instead of BETTER, namely when we create an ARMY? Right, it does increase the HITPOINTS rather than the attack value. Therefore, to be consistent with the approach of CIV3 and make the units more balanced I suggest to represent smaller units by giving them fewer hitpoints rather than giving them inferior attack and defence values.

BTW I have seen that submarines still don't have stealth attack in DIV, didn't you like the idea?

Cheers, Frodo_05

You do have some interesting points here. I however will not make any significant changes to the DIV version while Rocoteh is away. For now as much as many will not like it, BRI is taking center stage. I look forward to your suggestions on things to add as I am quite eager to add new things to the scenario and possibly bring things over that are in DIV into BRI. Thank you :)

I have downloaded TGW 2.0 and I have to say it looks impressive. Cant wait to find the time to play it.

I have found a problem ... enter civilopedia and click on units - I get a message 'Cannot find file art\civilopedia\icons\units\D7Lsmall.pcx' and the game shuts down. Anyone have any ideas how I can fix this ?

On a less important note, again in the civilopedia under tribes, click on more information and you find the first page of text seems to be missing.

Sorry if this has already been reported ... I haven't found the time to trawl through 103 pages of postings to see if it has.

All in all, great work, just cant wait to play.

The text for each of the civs was removed, It will be filled in later versions.

Good, the first bug :) How to fix that I think is to remove the L as that should not be there.

I took out the 'L', not an easy thing to find for a beginner like me, and it now works a treat.

I hope to give you my opinions and thoughts in a couple of days after i've played it a bit.

Dazz, copy another small pcx file and rename it to this missing file.

Sarevok, introduce the German infantry flavours I posted a while back (forget it if you have done it already, my play pc is still unable to come into the net).

Adler

Dazz, copy another small pcx file and rename it to this missing file.

Sarevok, introduce the German infantry flavours I posted a while back (forget it if you have done it already, my play pc is still unable to come into the net).

Adler

Which german flavor infantry? If youre talking about the Prussian Fusilier you truly havent played BRI becasue its been there since at least 1.7

Sarevok, I saw that Hunter made a new anim for the Dora Railgun - well his post stems from February, but the flcs seem to be newer than the ones that TGW-BRI has. Link is: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1563597&postcount=1

I also found some civilopedia files for the Dora. Link is: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1565151&postcount=13

CellKu

Looks pretty good :) I think ill check it out :)

Sorry, I just remember. I hadn´t much time to play BRI and had only a small look :blush: . Forget it.

Adler

Sarevok, I know that this has probably been addressed already, but with 104 pages of posts, it's a little hard to tell :rolleyes: , but is there a folder that's supposed to come with the scenario? It seems there should be one, but it wasn't included with the v2.0 .zip file. Could you please post it in the first post? Thanks a lot, I look forward to playing this! :goodjob:

SilverKnight, the additional folder is posted in Sarevok's first post, as well. It's an extra link and placed above the information that tells you how many times the previous versions of TGW have been downloaded.

Sarevok, what do you think of a new Engineer to replace the modern times worker?
Rufus made one: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1997623&postcount=1

CellKu

Looks good :)

Sorry, I just remember. I hadn´t much time to play BRI and had only a small look :blush: . Forget it.

Adler
Dont worry about it, just make sure you look more closely next time :)

Hello People,

I have a very big problem with this is it correct that it takes a very long time to laod?

Another question is - after a long time of loading i get the error message:

FILE NOT FOUND
"ART\UNITS\SUBMARINE\Submarine.INI"

The game is terminated.

The subdirectory submarines is not existing...:-(

What did i do wrong?

Hello People,

I have a very big problem with this is it correct that it takes a very long time to laod?

Another question is - after a long time of loading i get the error message:

FILE NOT FOUND
"ART\UNITS\SUBMARINE\Submarine.INI"

The game is terminated.

The subdirectory submarines is not existing...:-(

What did i do wrong?
Going by that I think there is something wrong with your civ3 game itself, as the only sub graphic in this game is the one in the original civ3. If you can get a screenshot of it, that would be very good. Thank you :)

i can send u a screenshot per e mail - i have no webspace.

you can post it on CFC...

and how - sorry maybe i am to stupid...:-)

There are two possibilities:
1. If your file is under 500 KB use the manage attachments button down of the writing "area".
2. Or look at the last red underlined line. There is a menu called upload files. Go into this. You will upload a file to http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/ . There you´ll get a link like http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/MyFile. This link you can post here.

That´s it.

Adler

indeed, that would be how to do it.

Still awating my needed comments for 2.0...

ok then here is teh screener - now the error is another one - i put the the great war 20.big file in the directory infogrames/civilization III/Conquests/scenarios

also all the other files went into the TGW folder in the same directory...

here is the screen:

i run patch 1.22

thx for help

I dont get it... That is exactly what you should do and that unit has been working for at least the last 5 versions of the scenario... Is anyone else getting this problem?

maybe the problem is that the file does not exist?

i cheked it and i dont have that file in the directory - see attached screener.

and i extraced everything...:-)

@monacon:
I suppose you're using a german version of C3C. It is very diffucult to play C3C scenarios with non-English game localisation. I know this well, as I have a French version. :)
The problem is not with TGW, but TGW uses graphics from Civ Vanilla or C3C. And someone very dumb at Firaxis made different units directories for each localisation. So in Art/Units, English will have Infantry, French Infanterie, German ... actually I don't know what you have !
The only solution I found until now is to create a mirror for ALL original units and to rename them with English names (.ini should be renamed too). Don't know if this will resolve your problem, but I remeber seeing a thread somewhere in CFC speaking about this.

@Sarevok:
I've played 2.0 for one turn. Except for the LSmall bug, it worked well but I don't have time to play it more this week.
However I still think that it isn't logic to have Germans starting with Light Artillery. Human player will upgrade them for free in Berlin at the first turn, while AI won't understand this. And there's no need to weaken AI, it is already very weak :)

@monacon:
I suppose you're using a german version of C3C. It is very diffucult to play C3C scenarios with non-English game localisation. I know this well, as I have a French version. :)
The problem is not with TGW, but TGW uses graphics from Civ Vanilla or C3C. And someone very dumb at Firaxis made different units directories for each localisation. So in Art/Units, English will have Infantry, French Infanterie, German ... actually I don't know what you have !
The only solution I found until now is to create a mirror for ALL original units and to rename them with English names (.ini should be renamed too). Don't know if this will resolve your problem, but I remeber seeing a thread somewhere in CFC speaking about this.

@Sarevok:
I've played 2.0 for one turn. Except for the LSmall bug, it worked well but I don't have time to play it more this week.
However I still think that it isn't logic to have Germans starting with Light Artillery. Human player will upgrade them for free in Berlin at the first turn, while AI won't understand this. And there's no need to weaken AI, it is already very weak :)
In that case should there be language versions?

In that case should there be language versions?

don't know :confused:

if one don't modify it's original game, almost all scenarios in CFC (exept the vey simple ones) wouldn't work. So why should TGW be different ?
That's why I suppose a lot of non-English CFC players already found a solution (perhaps not the same as the mine)

in case you really want to localize TGW, it isn't VERY difficult. But all your custom units using original animations must have a different .ini with the right path. And there could be problems with the Civilopedia (once again because Firaxis used different key-words for some units)

hope this will help :crazyeye:

No you do not have to make special language versions. However there is a "patch" to work English scens with the German version. It is in a thread on this forum. Another way would be to rename the original units into english ones, I mean copying the original files and then rename them. But therefore you need space...
Damn Firaxis for this!

Adler

No you do not have to make special language versions. However there is a "patch" to work English scens with the German version. It is in a thread on this forum. Another way would be to rename the original units into english ones, I mean copying the original files and then rename them. But therefore you need space...
Damn Firaxis for this!

Adler
I agree, they should not have done it like that!

I think that having a 22mb art to be downloaded makes it difficult to be taken.

I think that having a 22mb art to be downloaded makes it difficult to be taken.
What kind of connection do you have?

I registered just so I could ask this particular question. I've been reading through a good amount of the thread and I'm aware that on some comps it may take up to an hour to load the game. With that in mind, I loaded up the game and went to go take a shower. Seeing how it wasn't done afterwards I went out of the house and ran some errands, which took about an hour tops. I come back, and the load hasn't even moved at all, staying at about 3/4 of the way done. Is something horribly wrong with my comp, or is it something else?

(If I ever get to play, I'll make sure to vote for what looks like an awesome map!)

I registered just so I could ask this particular question. I've been reading through a good amount of the thread and I'm aware that on some comps it may take up to an hour to load the game. With that in mind, I loaded up the game and went to go take a shower. Seeing how it wasn't done afterwards I went out of the house and ran some errands, which took about an hour tops. I come back, and the load hasn't even moved at all, staying at about 3/4 of the way done. Is something horribly wrong with my comp, or is it something else?

(If I ever get to play, I'll make sure to vote for what looks like an awesome map!)

What kind of computer do you have? An hour is for my computer (256 RAM, 0.7 ghz) If you computer is worse than that then not only will it take longer, but I would advise playing the Division version instead or else you will have an incredibly slow game due to the number of units...

Well, I can say here and now that most likely I will need the DIV version.

Thanks,
Still-Smokin

There is a link to its download in the first post. You will however need the main version to play the scenairo, so dont delete those files.

Or be patient: load it and then go to bed. It is definately worth to do so.

Adler

Or be patient: load it and then go to bed. It is definately worth to do so.

Adler
I agree :)

Rocoteh,

I would very disappointed if you decide to stop developement on the NavalExp.
Haven't really played this scenario in a while since the new versions of BRI haven't really brought anything so significant that would convince me to start a new game. (That's for me. I'm sure new players will enjoy the improvements)

Starting a new game with this scenario is really time consuming and I don't have that time for bug hunting at this point. I'm on my fourth game with this scenario now, so there really isn't anything new and fresh for me anymore.
I was sure that the NavalExp would bring a new edge to the scenario and I would love to play it.

Sarevok,

Don't take my post as dissing your version. My current game is with BRI 1.8 so I play and enjoy it also. I just don't have the motivation for active playing after over 200 hours of gametime with this scenario. You're doing a great job with developement.

Well then, what do you want that will be "new and fresh" for BRI?

The American Flamethrower is already in C3C (..\Conquests\Conquests\WWII in the Pacific\Art\Units\Combat Engineer), so including it in the download is pointless anyway. It's not authorized for distrubution.

I think the German Flamethrower is, however. It's not in C3C, so it should have been authorized together with the other non-C3C extras.

Hmmm ... just out of sheer curiousity ...

Could you not get around this by writing the ini file to simply refer to the flc's amb's and wav's in the Conquests scenario, eg

Run= wwII in the pacific/art/units/combat engineer/combatengineerrun.wav (or whatever)

That way the sounds and graphics would not be in your download - don't think that it would be a technical violation of the distribution of "forbidden" c3c units.

I did not use the combat engineer. I have PTW so I would use the american Flamethrower. Still the graphic used in this scenario is the german unit.

When was that post BTW? I dont recall TLC posting in here for months...

Rocoteh,

I would very disappointed if you decide to stop developement on the NavalExp.
Haven't really played this scenario in a while since the new versions of BRI haven't really brought anything so significant that would convince me to start a new game. (That's for me. I'm sure new players will enjoy the improvements)

Starting a new game with this scenario is really time consuming and I don't have that time for bug hunting at this point. I'm on my fourth game with this scenario now, so there really isn't anything new and fresh for me anymore.
I was sure that the NavalExp would bring a new edge to the scenario and I would love to play it.

laisak,

Developement and work with the NavalExp continues.
I have not decided yet if there should be a test version first
with only the British and German naval forces "converted"
to the new system or a complete version with all
forces converted.

Rocoteh

hey saravok, this scenario is AMAZING, i am a big time history buff so i love these scenarios based on WW1 and 2. Other scenarios such such as the d-day landing and most others with the exception of phoenix's have sucked big time and been totally half arsed. in anycase before i begin to drool over the aspect of your next scenario release i would very much like to ask you how it was that you made the a)the diplomacy only allow RoPs b)how you made the research goe so slowly and C)and why it is that there seems to be no icon for the D7 in both the civpedia and the science advisory which causes the game to crash

oh and also since i am such a huge fan of your work i must ask you to consider making a vietnam scenario, i thank you for your consideration

hey saravok, this scenario is AMAZING, i am a big time history buff so i love these scenarios based on WW1 and 2. Other scenarios such such as the d-day landing and most others with the exception of phoenix's have sucked big time and been totally half arsed. in anycase before i begin to drool over the aspect of your next scenario release i would very much like to ask you how it was that you made the a)the diplomacy only allow RoPs b)how you made the research goe so slowly and C)and why it is that there seems to be no icon for the D7 in both the civpedia and the science advisory which causes the game to crash
A) When you are in the civlization advances window, it shows many boxes that you can click to add new things in. For example when you get nationalism the box there is clicked for adding the draft into the game. The same is true of alliances and MPP's I quite simply did not assign a tech for them to enter the game, which makes it impossible for them to happen. This is why TGW can have neutral nations, and not worry about them making mass-alliances and destroying the game in the way that has been shown in multiple other scenarios. I only left Rop's in the game.

B) You can set the minimum and maximum reserch times in the general settings window. Also I increased the general costs of techs so that they would take longer.

C) A bug... Ill have to get that.

Concerning a Vietnam scenario, Im not going to make that for 2 reasons:

1. I know very little about the Vietnam War, so I would not be able to create a high quality scenario on a subject I know little of...

2. Luddi's scenario is extremely good, so I have little wish to "take his glory" if you know what I mean. If you play that and have issues, he can take suggestions pretty good to fix it up :)

Concerning a next scenario... Im still debating if I will make another mass-project... I can promise you this though: I am not done yet :)

laisak,

Developement and work with the NavalExp continues.
I have not decided yet if there should be a test version first
with only the British and German naval forces "converted"
to the new system or a complete version with all
forces converted.

Rocoteh
That is alot to do, so I can imagine that the main reason it has not been done and is something that hits me too is that people need to care about the stuff we do. It is completely non-profit and even more so for me since I cant even play these maps. If large numbers of people do not say that they want something from us or we do not think that something will be heavily appreciated, the question "What is the point?" comes up.

That is alot to do, so I can imagine that the main reason it has not been done and is something that hits me too is that people need to care about the stuff we do. It is completely non-profit and even more so for me since I cant even play these maps. If large numbers of people do not say that they want something from us or we do not think that something will be heavily appreciated, the question "What is the point?" comes up.

Sarevok,

Comment made with PM to you.

I will release a Multiplayer version of TGW-DIV some
hours from now
It can also be played like as a "normal" scenario.
Load time with 512 MB RAM and 1.2 Ghz Celeron:
6 minutes 30 seconds.

Rocoteh

TGW-DIV Multiplayer 1.0

IMPORTANT: YOU MUST INSTALL TGW FIRST TO PLAY TGW-DIV. Multiplayer 1.0

Only minor changes compared with 1.2a, but
load-time and game-speed heavily improved.

Removed after 134 downloads.

I am really looking forward toward reactions on this
version of TGW.
Some reactions have been: Its to easy to play The Central Powers.

This version, where you can play human versus human should
tell if this critique is relevant or not!
Again: This Multiplayer version can also be played
as a "normal" scenario.
It will be faster!

Rocoteh

Hi I'm trying out the scenario and though the scenario is thoroughly made it completly crashes because it's so dependent of artillery and thus the AI has no chance of victory. I have only played as german so far on general major lvl and victory is just a matter of patience (year 1915 week 2).
It's really a shame because there is so much good in the scenario and the whole periode to make a beautiful strategic war-scenario, don't have a solution to the problem but at least the lethal bombardment of the siege gun should be taken off, I have about 30 of 'em and if used intensively can take out about anything. Perhaps a more diverse selection of infantry?

Otherwise great work
Nis

Hi I'm trying out the scenario and though the scenario is thoroughly made it completly crashes because it's so dependent of artillery and thus the AI has no chance of victory. I have only played as german so far on general major lvl and victory is just a matter of patience (year 1915 week 2).
It's really a shame because there is so much good in the scenario and the whole periode to make a beautiful strategic war-scenario, don't have a solution to the problem but at least the lethal bombardment of the siege gun should be taken off, I have about 30 of 'em and if used intensively can take out about anything. Perhaps a more diverse selection of infantry?

Otherwise great work
Nis

Nis,

Then the Multiplayer version can be a good alternative for you.

The problem with artillery is within the CIV/C3C game-engine.
Of course you can "factor in" artillery-formations with infantry-formations,
though the result would probably not be an "WWI-feeling".
After all artillery caused more than 80% of the losses.

Again I think you will find the Multiplayer version interesting.
(BTW: No lethal land bombardment there.)
D7 crash avoided with an ad hoc solution.

Rocoteh

Link set up :)

Link set up :)

Thank you.

Rocoteh

do you know if it works well? Did you remove alot of cities?

do you know if it works well? Did you remove alot of cities?

It seems to work very well.
No cities were removed. The sharp drop in load-time is due
that there are only 8 CIV:s.
8 CIV:s are maximum in Multiplayer scenarios.
Portugal, Greece and Arabia are now British Control.
Belgium is French control.
Serbia,Montenegro and Romania are Russian control.
The neutral CIV:s have been combined to one CIV: Neutrals.

In this version load and waiting time have been
cut to a minimum.

Rocoteh

butyoure also on a super-fast comp, you might not notice the difference. Ill load it up tonight to see.

butyoure also on a super-fast comp, you might not notice the difference. Ill load it up tonight to see.

This scenario has been created and tested on my old
computer: 512MB RAM 1.2 Ghz Celeron.
I would not call that superfast.

Rocoteh

Alright, sounds good. Im convinced :)

The scenario is great, though AI ruins everything... The game depends on artillery and throughout the WHOLE game, AI had NEVER used it...

I started playing as Russia and was a bit surprised by stats, the infantry had... I quickly realized that using them for offensive actions would be a bad idea... So, I started building artillery...
For some reason, AI decided "<censored> the Schlieffen plan" and moved 50 German and 30 A-H divisions (mostly, infantry) against me... I formed trench lines near enemy stacks and startrd shelling them with everything that could hurl anything heavier than a bullet... Enemy units ended up with 1 hp each and were quickly "mopped up" by my Cossacks. The assault ended up with enemy loosing all 4 armies, ~ 80 divisions. I lost 2 cossacks, but had 14 promoted to veterans and 5 to elites. After that, enemy sent small (>30) stacks which were shreded to pieces and served as training dummies for more cossacks... Then, I went on offensive. I brought up my light artillery, shelled the <censored> out of defenders and sent my elite cossacks (I had a LOT of them) to kill of the 1 hp defenders. First, came Memel, then Konigsberg... By the time I got to Berlin, it was shelled with 200!!! guns...

All this time, enemy went straight towards my artillery...

The Russian infantry came out SO fast that I had to send stacks of 200+ infantry for certain death just to save my economy... By the end of the game, I realized that I could STEAL technology, making the game a fast walkthrough since allies can't brreak up with me...

All this was done on the hardest level (Don't remember how it's called)...

I understand thet the game was designed so that everything would go historically, but if the player controls a major power, it DOESN'T.

Then, I changed a few things: Changed Russian infantry to 8.10.1 (historically, it performed better than Rumanian or Italian), changed the rate of production of Russian infantry to 10 turns (Russia mobilized 15 millions, which is slightly above what Germany had, not those HORDES) and gave Germany and A-H EACH 300 additional infantry and Turkey 150 additional infantry to start with...

That was a fight :ar15:
That was a game!

Sigh... cant they ever fix the AI?

Esaul,

I recommend that you test the Multiplayer-version.
The difference between AI and a human will always
be great (and that is an understatement).

Rocoteh

AI? I do not think something like that, which refuses the use of all units, is very intelligent. Nevertheless the next patch should enhance the AI. But I doubt it.

Adler

The basic problem with creating a decent AI is
probably that it would be a no-profit project.

Thus I doubt we will see a better AI in the future.

Rocoteh

AI? I do not think something like that, which refuses the use of all units, is very intelligent. Nevertheless the next patch should enhance the AI. But I doubt it.

Adler
As Do I, I am deeply disturbed by the fact that Firaxis seems not to disucc with the civ community. I am also deeply disturbed by the recent post trend in here. I have had enough of DL's

I am also deeply disturbed by the recent post trend in here. I have had enough of DL's

I am not sure I interprete you right.

Can you clarify?

Rocoteh

I am not sure I interprete you right.

Can you clarify?

Rocoteh
The last 2 pages I do not like the way people are typing their messages. Its is a very familiar style, and i have learned to hate it. Perhaps im just paranoid, but I have every gun loaded right now and if i hear something ill shoot.

People should of course vote as they want on the poll,
however I do not understand the logic in low votes on TGW,
when the problems are related to the game-engine.

We can not change the game-engine!

Rocoteh

The last 2 pages I do not like the way people are typing their messages. Its is a very familiar style, and i have learned to hate it. Perhaps im just paranoid, but I have every gun loaded right now and if i hear something ill shoot.

OK, I get what you mean!

In fact I have had the same thoughts as you.
It follows an old pattern.....

Sometimes in life paranoia is not paranoia...

Rocoteh

People should of course vote as they want on the poll,
however I do not understand the logic in low votes on TGW,
when the problems are related to the game-engine.

We can not change the game-engine!

Rocoteh
It is pretty much general policy that if your vote is negative and is genuinely against the quality of the scenario and is not the civ AI or your own commps problem then I condier it a genune vote. Otherwise, I beleive that the vote was made in spite against me and Rocoteh.

The last 2 pages I do not like the way people are typing their messages. Its is a very familiar style, and i have learned to hate it. Perhaps im just paranoid, but I have every gun loaded right now and if i hear something ill shoot. i am sick of getting shot at what should i do

It is pretty much general policy that if your vote is negative and is genuinely against the quality of the scenario and is not the civ AI or your own commps problem then I condier it a genune vote. Otherwise, I beleive that the vote was made in spite against me and Rocoteh. shoot life is not werth living if your dead

shoot life is not werth living if your dead
Does this guy think im suicidal? :lol: reffering to shooting, I mean if i hear anything move, ill shoot it. Im paranoid and Im in a "shoot anything that moves" mood.

Sarevok,

You have no paranoia!
The TGW-thread is under attack again.
Info send to you with PM.

Its 99% the same group of people that have attacked
the thread ever since it was launched.

This time they acted smarter than earlier. One have to admit that.

Rocoteh

Hello.

I have downloaded your scenario (art file + scenario file) v2.0.
I have places the biq file in the conquests\scenarios directory and the rest in conquests\scenarios\TGW

I am running conquests v1.22 (latest patch).

I notice the following problems :
1) When I go to see the road to war technologies, game crashes (file not found art\civilopedia\icons\unit\D7LSmall.pcx)
2) technologies have weird icons, as if those icons were not replaced (maybe this one is normal)

This is the first scenario I ever install so there is a possibility that I do something wrong.

Could someone please help me get this right, as I really want to give this scenario a try ?

Many thanks,
Xavier

I notice the following problems :
1) When I go to see the road to war technologies, game crashes (file not found art\civilopedia\icons\unit\D7LSmall.pcx)
2) technologies have weird icons, as if those icons were not replaced (maybe this one is normal)


Actually I found a way around problem 1 : create a copy of D7Small.pcx names D7LSmall.pcx

I still have problem 2, though and two others :
* Text in civilopedia (and elsewhere) gets written outside borders, making most of it unreadable
* The first page of historic texts related to the different civilizations appears blank.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Xavier

Sarevok,

You have no paranoia!
The TGW-thread is under attack again.
Info send to you with PM.

Its 99% the same group of people that have attacked
the thread ever since it was launched.

This time they acted smarter than earlier. One have to admit that.

Rocoteh
To them: I would stop now. I am much more ruthless and dangerous now than I ever was before. I am sick of DL's and just because you cannot stand the idea of this scenarios existence does not mean you go around consistently trying to bash this thread! If you honestly hate this scenario make one better! Stop being a coward and Take action!

To Xa4: I would change that immediately, but I have ZERO feedback on 2.1 so I cannot change that in the immediate future. I have known that problem for at least a week. Thanks :)

To Xa4: I would change that immediately, but I have ZERO feedback on 2.1 so I cannot change that in the immediate future. I have known that problem for at least a week. Thanks :)

I'm using ver 2.0. Does your answer mean there is a version 2.1 ? If so, where is it ?

And you said you knew about the problem. I talked about four problems. Please, could you say which of my problems you were talking about. I'm still very eager to give that mod a fair try ;)
Thank you,
Xavier

Sorry, Sarevok, I would really like to help, but as I mentioned my PC has no contact with the internet or another possibility to test your version. Also there are holidays and therefore the response will be naturally low. OTOH this will be post 2136. I do not think that another scenario within 7 month will get this response. Nor I do not think that a bad scenario could be now in the 21st version!

Adler

its in the 10th version ;) there was no 0.1

Alot of posts are spam posts though, not alot is really going on here.

Sarevok, why do you think that I voted against your scenario?! I'm the 79'th vote in your support...

You cut me real deep... :(

What I tried to point out is that a balanced geme (where if all player are controlled by AI, the result would be unpredictable) is too easy for a human. Perhaps a good idea would be creating separate scenarios for each major nation: Give AI more/better units/tech/money/whatever is necessary. Give player a special government with war weariness: that way, mounths of stockpiling artillery and 200+ division infantry charges would be a bit problematic... Also, lock the goverment so that he would not be able to escape :wallbash:

Rocoteh, the multiplayer game would be nice, but due to the scale of the scenario and my love for thinking slowly ahead of every move such things would result in :suicide: of my fellow players and me been sentenced lifetime for a mass murder... :sad:

If AI is stupid, then he should be given enough units to crush the human...

It will be REALY ahistorical, but will work for the single player...
Multiplayer scenario is just fine

P.S. Russia should have less infantry... She could not mobilize THAT much THAT fast...

I didnt say anyone specific, but I beleive i saw the negative vote count go up by 4 in the last 2 days... I doubt it was you.

About the negative vote: anyone can be registered on this forum. Anyone can vote.

Average intelligence is REALY average... Some people wanted to see flying hamburgers in your scenario... They saw none, got angry and voted against.

I wish they would give: nickname of everyone who voted, their home adresses and telephone numbers and lists of their fears :devil2: .

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

To the Russian speakers: here is a poem about WW1 by A.Block:

Петроградское небо мутилось дождем,
На войну уходил эшелон.
Без конца — взвод за взводом и штык за штыком
Наполнял за вагоном вагон.

В этом поезде тысячью жизней цвели
Боль разлуки, тревоги любви,
Сила, юность, надежда... В закатной дали
Были дымные тучи в крови.

И, садясь, запевали Варяга одни,
А другие — не в лад — Ермака,
И кричали ура, и шутили они,
И тихонько крестилась рука.

Вдруг под ветром взлетел опадающий лист,
Раскачнувшись, фонарь замигал,
И под черною тучей веселый горнист
Заиграл к отправленью сигнал.

И военною славой заплакал рожок,
Наполняя тревогой сердца.
Громыханье колес и охрипший свисток
Заглушило ура без конца.

Уж последние скрылись во мгле буфера,
И сошла тишина до утра,
А с дождливых полей все неслось к нам ура,
В грозном клике звучало: пора!

Нет, нам не было грустно, нам не было жаль,
Несмотря на дождливую даль.
Это — ясная, твердая, верная сталь,
И нужна ли ей наша печаль?

Эта жалость — ее заглушает пожар,
Гром орудий и топот коней.
Грусть — ее застилает отравленный пар
С галицийских кровавых полей...

If anybody wants, I can translate it (though It'll tke some time).

About the negative vote: anyone can be registered on this forum. Anyone can vote.

Average intelligence is REALY average... Some people wanted to see flying hamburgers in your scenario... They saw none, got angry and voted against.

I wish they would give: nickname of everyone who voted, their home adresses and telephone numbers and lists of their fears :devil2: .

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

To the Russian speakers: here is a poem about WW1 by A.Block:

Петроградское небо мутилось дождем,
На войну уходил эшелон.
Без конца — взвод за взводом и штык за штыком
Наполнял за вагоном вагон.

В этом поезде тысячью жизней цвели
Боль разлуки, тревоги любви,
Сила, юность, надежда... В закатной дали
Были дымные тучи в крови.

И, садясь, запевали Варяга одни,
А другие — не в лад — Ермака,
И кричали ура, и шутили они,
И тихонько крестилась рука.

Вдруг под ветром взлетел опадающий лист,
Раскачнувшись, фонарь замигал,
И под черною тучей веселый горнист
Заиграл к отправленью сигнал.

И военною славой заплакал рожок,
Наполняя тревогой сердца.
Громыханье колес и охрипший свисток
Заглушило ура без конца.

Уж последние скрылись во мгле буфера,
И сошла тишина до утра,
А с дождливых полей все неслось к нам ура,
В грозном клике звучало: пора!

Нет, нам не было грустно, нам не было жаль,
Несмотря на дождливую даль.
Это — ясная, твердая, верная сталь,
И нужна ли ей наша печаль?

Эта жалость — ее заглушает пожар,
Гром орудий и топот коней.
Грусть — ее застилает отравленный пар
С галицийских кровавых полей...
you cannot post anything in a foreign language without giving a translation. What does that say?

Back to business:

Some weeks from time I will start a playtest of
TGW BRI (to be reported here) with the goal improving
the scenario further.
I am also a part of TGW BRI,(if anyone had doubt on that).

More playtests reports overall are welcome.
Many playtest-reports = Greater chance to improve the scenario.

Rocoteh

Thats exactly what I needed to hear right now! Thank you Rocoteh! :D

Thats exactly what I needed to hear right now! Thank you Rocoteh! :D

Yes, in general I have decided to allocate more time
to TGW-BRI although TGW-DIV is still a living project.


Rocoteh

Rocoteh see my string of PM's, I got alot of them.

Greetings again.

As my previous post is now burried below stacks of other posts, and as it didn't get a real answer, I thought I could repost the troubles I have with the scenario. I would appreciate if anyone could tell me if they are experiencing the same and if not, what can I do to correct the problem.

* Historical Texts describing the different civs in the civilopedia : the first page is blank
* Texts in the civilopedia and elsewhere go outside the place where they should be making some part of it unreadable as it overlaps with other text
* the scientific advances icons are weird, as if they were not replaced (communism icon for some totally unrelated advance, for example)

I'm using ver 2.0 of the scenario on conquests with the latest patch.

Any answer will be welcomed.

Thank you

Xavier

Greetings again.

As my previous post is now burried below stacks of other posts, and as it didn't get a real answer, I thought I could repost the troubles I have with the scenario. I would appreciate if anyone could tell me if they are experiencing the same and if not, what can I do to correct the problem.

* Historical Texts describing the different civs in the civilopedia : the first page is blank
* Texts in the civilopedia and elsewhere go outside the place where they should be making some part of it unreadable as it overlaps with other text
* the scientific advances icons are weird, as if they were not replaced (communism icon for some totally unrelated advance, for example)

I'm using ver 2.0 of the scenario on conquests with the latest patch.

Any answer will be welcomed.

Thank you

Xavier
1. Historical Texts removed intentionally. There are no current plans to fill them.
2. Still, the entries go with the places they belong, so there is no bad effect.
3. There arent enough usable tech pictures for the techs in the scenario. When there are, it will be complete.

Hope that helped :)

ATTENTION: I have put on the first post a download for an updated PediaIcons file. Put this in the TGW/Text folder to replace the old one in order to fix the D7Lsmall bug. Thank you.

- Sarevok

1. Historical Texts removed intentionally. There are no current plans to fill them.
2. Still, the entries go with the places they belong, so there is no bad effect.
3. There arent enough usable tech pictures for the techs in the scenario. When there are, it will be complete.

Hope that helped :)

Thank you for your answer. It did help a bit :)
However,
1. this is strange because only the first page is blank. When you click on more, the second part of the text displays.
2. Do you mean I souldn't experience unreadable text. true, they display where they sould, but they're too big for the place that holds them. From other posts in other topics, I suspect this may be a problem with labels.txt, but I don't really understand it.
3. OK, so this is perfectly normal, Thank you.

Xavier

Thank you for your answer. It did help a bit :)
However,
1. this is strange because only the first page is blank. When you click on more, the second part of the text displays.
2. Do you mean I souldn't experience unreadable text. true, they display where they sould, but they're too big for the place that holds them. From other posts in other topics, I suspect this may be a problem with labels.txt, but I don't really understand it.
3. OK, so this is perfectly normal, Thank you.

Xavier
1. Strange... Ill have to check that out as I beleive I dealt with the civilopedia for 2.0
2. Again, I remeber that problem from previous versions and I beleive I fixed them for 2.0 Ill check it again for 2.1

Thank you very much for this info, it is good to know any Civilopedia issues. :)

People, today, 90 years ago the fortress of Belgrade opened fire on Austrian ships on the Danube. Austrian monitors fired back. There were no casualities but this was the beginnin of World War 1.

Adler

People, today, 90 years ago the fortress of Belgrade opened fire on Austrian ships on the Danube. Austrian monitors fired back. There were no casualities but this was the beginnin of World War 1.

Adler
very true, its when Austria Declared war :)

Main page ad seems to have been delayed.

Anyway:
TGW-DIV Multiplayer can also be played as an
"normal" scenario. If you have an low-capacity computer
and think TGW-BRI and TGW-DIV loads and work to slow
you should try the Multiplayer version!
It runs much faster.

Rocoteh

Indeed with 8 civs that will be quite fast :)

very true, its when Austria Declared war :)

Indeed. But this time the "attacker" was attacked!

Adler

very true. Back to the scenario, any feedback?

very true. Back to the scenario, any feedback?

Yes, we need more playtest-reports.
Activity have been low here the last week.
Maybe its due to summer.

Rocoteh

I think thats the problem as well. Im thinking we wait a bit then launch 2.1

Yes, maybe should download of 2.0 hit 1 000, before
launching 2.1.

Rocoteh

I agree, or when its September 7th.

I am looking forward toward reactions on Multiplayer 1.0.
It will be very interesting to hear about playbalance when
2 or more humans are playing this scenario.

Rocoteh

I agree, that would be an interesting scenario to have 2 human AI's (or more) rather than just the braindead CIV AI :D

My TGW-Game doesn't function properly, because of the unit "Kaiserjäger". The first error occured when I started the game for the first time. The game could'nt find the unit. I opened my "TGW"-directory and saw that there was a unit called "Kaiserj,,ger". I corrected the name of the file and what was in it. But now I have the problem, that the game doesn't find "Kaiserjäger_small.pcx". I used the newest version of TGW and the corrected PediaIcons.txt.

Edit: I solved the problem by finding the "Kaiserjäger_small.pcx" in "Civilopedia\Icons\Units" and correcting it - it was again written with two commas instead of an "ä". Is that a general error or am I the only one having trouble with it?

Arvin,

I think the problem with ä refers to that you have an German edition
of CIV. However PediaIcons text should read Kaiserjägersmall.pcx.

Sarevok will probably be online 6-7 hours from now.
I hope he can upload a new PediaIcons file and a new Civilopedia/Icons/Units file
on the front page of this thread.

Rocoteh

No, I have an English edition, because I wanted to play the english scenarios and modifications, too. There isn't a lot of German stuff out there. I find the incompability of German and English stuff is too bad. I hope they'll make it better in Civ4. :)

Arvin,

OK, I see.
Maybe its best to change the name of this unit to
Kaiserjaeger in 2.1 to avoid problems, or what
do you say Sarevok?

Rocoteh

Hmm...great map, but it appears the Massif Central in France is a bit empty... Perhaps Clermont-Ferrend, at a size 5, will do.

Thinking that it is the PediaIcons thats the problem, ill fix that and upload a new file soon.

Hmm...great map, but it appears the Massif Central in France is a bit empty... Perhaps Clermont-Ferrend, at a size 5, will do.

Roi du Culture,

Yes, as mentioned earlier there is need to rework
the map with regard to France.
In TGW-DIV I will probably add some heavy artillery
for France.

Rocoteh

Theres a bit of a problem.... The olny way to fix the "Kaiserjager" problem is to change the name of allthe files with that name. That means I cannot just make a pediaIcons to load up. I have to make a new version of the scenario.

2.1 Will be released in a week or so. I request immediate feedback of any changes wanted in the scenario.

Theres a bit of a problem.... The olny way to fix the "Kaiserjager" problem is to change the name of allthe files with that name. That means I cannot just make a pediaIcons to load up. I have to make a new version of the scenario.

2.1 Will be released in a week or so. I request immediate feedback of any changes wanted in the scenario.

I meant the name-change could be included
with 2.1.

Rocoteh

oh, I though you meant that it would be in a new PediaIcons. ;)

oh, I though you meant that it would be in a new PediaIcons. ;)

No, I am aware of that there must be a new
version should the name be changed.

Rocoteh

Alright, now Ill just wait for some general suggestions for things to add to 2.1 then ill release.

As recoteh said i think the french need more artillery

I think the CIV3 AI needs an overhaul...

I think the CIV3 AI needs an overhaul...

ya, it's artificial intelligence, the AI just reacts to what you do, and is there going to be a tgw multiplayer version that isnt divisionary, because i like the normal version better

I agree, though I think you should try multiplayer.

I agree, though I think you should try multiplayer.

i would, but unfortunately my c3c disk is stuck in my laptop which doesn't turn on

then how are you playing...

i never said i was playing this moment, but i have played it much in the past

alright, do you have suggestions for 2.1?

i`m using the first civ III from 2001 and all i want to do is to play a wwII scenario like in civ II or wwI. Is this possible without conquest and ptw?
thanks for your help!

1895

With this scenario it is not possible. For you I would suggest luiz' WWI map for vanilla civ. Its probably buried though so you will have to search for it.

Sarevok are you going to make a tgw multiplayer thats not divisionary?

Sarevok are you going to make a tgw multiplayer thats not divisionary?

I am sure he will! :)
Though the download numbers for the Multiplayer-version
of TGW-DIV could be better!

Rocoteh

i just like moving more troops, it makes it feel more realistic with a lot of troops

P.S. if recoteh's is divisionary, then what is regular tgw, regimental?

Anyone interested in playing a mulitplayer game?

I've played TGW v1.6 extensively and would love to try a game against an opponent who knows how to properly use artillery... Like before a huge offensive or to mow down an enemy offensive.

E-mail me at brian_klee4@hotmail.com if you are interested or reply here...

Hi. I have been trying to download the scenario, but can not find where you meant for the TGW file folder to be.

it is right above the attachment on the first post.

Anyone interested in playing a mulitplayer game?

I've played TGW v1.6 extensively and would love to try a game against an opponent who knows how to properly use artillery... Like before a huge offensive or to mow down an enemy offensive.

E-mail me at brian_klee4@hotmail.com if you are interested or reply here...

i would be interested once i fix my laptop, and get my cd out

i just like moving more troops, it makes it feel more realistic with a lot of troops

P.S. if recoteh's is divisionary, then what is regular tgw, regimental?

Its Brigade-level.

Rocoteh

Well I hope you get youre disc out soon, then you can tell us about your game :)

we're gonna a power cord, we think the old one stopped working, so that will be good, we may even have it fixed by tomorrow :goodjob:

Well I await your comments as im not getting any ideas for improvements.

it would be fun though if we got 7 people, one for every major power

Sarevok,

Not a single idea or suggestion!
I suggest you wait at least one month with the
release of 2.1. My impression is that many posters
are away now.

Rocoteh

A severe crisis between Sarevok and moderators at CFC
is at hand. Sarevok is so furious he planned
to kill all the links to TGW, TOE and TKK.
I have for the moment persuaded him not to
take that action, however there is a great
risk that Sarevok will leave CFC for good.
He have already established other fields
of operation.
I consider Sarevok as one of the most talented scenario-creators
we have seen.
Should he leave this site it will be for good that is 100%.
In such a case CFC has suffered a severe loss.

Rocoteh

Indeed. Sarevok, calm down. I do not know what happened. But you shouldn´t terminate all links here. I can understand if you have too much trouble here to stay but first please think of your fans here. 110 people who say you made an at least good scenario. In my opinion it is the best. What happened? Is it so severe to make that action? You´re one of the best creators I´ve ever seen for civ3. Please stay. If you can´t it would be a pity to leave the civ community forever. IF you have to go, go to cdg. Some other posters here had also problems and posting there. But please do not leave the community. :cry:

Adler

Clarification.

TGW will very soon be up for download at CDG
where Sarevok will continue to operate even if he
choose to leave CFC.

Rocoteh

Then he only should stay and post here at least his links for CDG. Wyrmshadow, I know there is a quarrel between both, does the same. CDG is not as big as CFC. But this way he will reach more people.

Adler

I have had a long discussion with Sarevok during
the day, where I try to convince him not to quit CFC.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh - being banned is not a "severe crisis". Why do you scenario designers have to drop everything at the sight of 1 ban? No one here is above CFC rules, we treat everyone equally.

I have no idea what happened, and I am not even on CFC that often, but I do know that Sarevok and whoever he has had help him have produced scenarios unmatched by any in quality and especially detail. I really hope that a version of The Great War is included in Civ 4. It is that good... As for his other scenarios I have not played as extensively, but they are all of high quality and undoubtedly were put together under great care. Adler mentioned your fans, well, I am one... I guess if you go to another sight, that is fine just please post what site that is.

Regards,
A FAN

why was sarevok banned? you don't have to tell me if you feel you shouldn't though.

as for what chieftess said scenario makers are like artists, you know what i mean ;)

why was sarevok banned? you don't have to tell me if you feel you shouldn't though.

as for what chieftess said scenario makers are like artists, you know what i mean ;)

bigmeat,

Due to forum rules I can not discuss that.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh - being banned is not a "severe crisis". Why do you scenario designers have to drop everything at the sight of 1 ban? No one here is above CFC rules, we treat everyone equally.

Chieftess,

Do you mean scenario designers as a group are psycological
different than other people?
If you really mean that, I can not agree.

The ban on Sarevok have had the result that he is now planning
leave CFC for good. Had I not talked with him it would be fact already.
To me this is a severe crisis!

On the ban in general (not this ban):

I think banning should be used with great,great caution.
One can communicate. One can warn.
When you ban someone, you humiliate him!
Such actions should be used as a last resort.

"No one here is above CFC rules, we treat everyone equally."

Chieftess

Yes this is often pointed out with arrogance from CFC officials.
Sometimes even a Stalin-quote is added: "Everyone can be replaced."

50-60 individuals do the main "production-work" at CFC.
Without their work CFC would be a stone-dead giant!
Maybe CFC officials should consider that at least a second
instead of displaying arrogance!

Should Sarevok choose to leave CFC, I will probably also
leave, but "Everyone can be replaced" thus no need to worrie folks.


Rocoteh

Chieftess, I also think that there should be a kind of court to question bans. I know nobody is perfect and so also mods make mistakes. So the justice is helped and nobody can complain when there is a really neutral instance.

Adler

The forum isn't a democracy. Don't discuss moderator bans in public. Also, this discussion is turning into a threadjack.

Well, im back.

I will state right now for those concerned that I will stay, and so will the scenarios. I will also say that my relations with the CFC staff, although tarnished remains good enough for me to stay and think I can function.

I will say though that the only thing that kept me from deleting the scenario links was that I could not use the edit button, with Rocoteh arriving online only minutes after that discovery. I will say that I agree with alot that was said above, but I am not looking for a fight here. I will say though that my next ban here will be my last here, as I will not tolerate such a mental humiliation a third time.

So in short I will stay and keep my ideas on this forums Authoritarianism out of public view where all can see, but I do not relinquish them and will leave if it gets worse.

- Sarevok

Welcome back

Its good to be back :)

Yes, wellcome back.

Adler

Sarevok,

Welcome back.

Rocoteh

yay, good to have you back sarevok

Once again, its good to be back :D

Alright, for now since its summer I will delay 2.1 for a time until I get some decent things to improve the scenario with. I was actually thinking of "borrowing" something from DIV. Perhaps having all the units currently on the map be one type that is not buildable again while the buildable kind is slightly weaker, leading to an eventual deterioration in combat strength, What do you think?

Sounds good to me.
I would not call it borrow.
TGW is one scenario.
Combat strenght did detoriate on all sides
so I think its a good way to go.

Rocoteh

Weakening new troops seems to be a very good idea! Besides historical accuracy it would force the player to use his initial troops much more cautiously which adds even more to realism.

By the way, I just read through the last pages to see what I missed so far. I am glad that this recent crisis has ended and the situation is back to normal - and all are back on board incl. Sarevok. :)

As for ideas for 2.1 I have seen some new units in the unit forum like a WW1 artillery (by aaglo). Perhaps that is of interest to you:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2046427&postcount=1

CellKu

CellKu,

Welcome back!
You are really needed at this thread.
I have a mathematical estimate somewhere
on how troop-quality fell.
I will try to find it.

Rocoteh

Wow, I am impressed! True, there are a lot of other versions that existed previously, but you definitely went over and above. The specific, unique units rather than generic "WWI infantry" (especially the Kaiserjager) really give this one detail and authenticity. Yes, I am a sucker for realistic units :-) Also, the terrain looks BEAUTIFUL!

I'm a little curious about the mountain edges, though. And one other question, the same one I'm pondering over all other WWI scenarios on here...if war has been declared by all nations, shouldn't the Germans ALREADY be in Belgium, threatening the French from the north east through there?

I'm going to write up a civ description for the playable nations, so if you want me to post that to add I will gladly do so.

That sounds good :)

As for belgium, they are partially in belgium, but not really.

Weakening new troops seems to be a very good idea! Besides historical accuracy it would force the player to use his initial troops much more cautiously which adds even more to realism.

By the way, I just read through the last pages to see what I missed so far. I am glad that this recent crisis has ended and the situation is back to normal - and all are back on board incl. Sarevok. :)

As for ideas for 2.1 I have seen some new units in the unit forum like a WW1 artillery (by aaglo). Perhaps that is of interest to you:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2046427&postcount=1

CellKu
Its good to have you back Cellku! :D

That suggestion I made ws the first real game changing suggestion for 2.0, so I desperately need some feedback. The Aaglo cannon has been put into 2.1 as have been many new unit graphics.Though in busy with other occupations right now, I still can do a few things for TGW.

Troop-quality.

Estimate by A.A Nofi:

1914 1915 1916 1917 1918
Austria-Hungary 3 3 2 3 2
Belgium 3 3 3 3 3
Bulgaria - 3 3 3 2
Britain 5+ 4 3 4 4
France 4 4 3 3 4
Germany 5 4 4 4 4
Italy - 4 3 2 4
Portugal - - - 2 2
Romania - - 3 1 0
Russia 3 3 2 1 0
Turkey - 3 3 2 1
U.S.A - - - 4 4


Rocoteh

Interesting... How will this be set up...

Interesting... How will this be set up...

Yes, there must be potitive incitaments with research,
so players do not abstain from it to avoid decline
in troop-quality.

Rocoteh

I would give France only a 2 in 1917. There was a big mutinity. If Hindenburg acted fast, the whole German army had only 2 or 3 French divisions as opponent. So Hindenburg could have been in Paris with ease. And without France the British had to return to Britain. War would be over. No further october revolution...

Adler

Yes, I agree.

A 2 in 1917 will be relevant.
Also: The numbers for Italy seems somewhat to high.

Rocoteh

Indeed. Although some Italian members would not agree ;)...

Adler

The Italians were offed at Caporetto in 1917. It is quite alright.

if u want people to research more, make it like in the risse of rome scenario with french infantry I,II, AND III, than u have to research to upgrade

and i got my laptop working

So "upgrade" would mean advanced army technology? But if you have the suggested units I, II, III with increasing stats for better technology, how could you implement the declining fighting spirit?

My idea for implementing the "declining stats" feature would be
either
(1) to couple it with an advanced technology in another field that functions as an incentive for research;
or
(2) have every technology that could be researched after an increase in the unit stats (the I, II, III thing) containing a new unit with decreased stats. Thus, the player can't avoid the decreasing stats.

CellKu

To do all of that I would have to re-make the tech tree... that is only way I see I can fix all of this. I have come up with a tech tree solution for future scenarios, and if applies on this one it would be excellent.

CellKu,

Your solutions to the problem sounds very good!

Rocoteh

I agree. CellKu :goodjob:

Adler

great, now I have to re-make the tech tree just when my time is dismembered.

great, now I have to re-make the tech tree just when my time is dismembered.

If so, let this change wait until 2.2.
You do not have to rush it.
....Or delay 2.1.
Why not wait until current version hits 1 000 downloads?

Rocoteh

I agree with Rocoteh. Don't rush things. Perhaps you will get even more input during the next weeks when people are coming back from their summer vacation.

Btw, didn't you plan to overhaul the tech tree some day, anyway? (Some techs could be "regrouped", but before I go into detail I will wait until you have time and will be able to work on the tech tree.) :)

CellKu

I mean a complete overhaul, where the first techs all nations get will be at the beggining rather than the end of the tree. while in this scenario many nations are already in the final age, the new plan is to put everyone at the same place there, except a few who will have some advancements.

Next version of TGW-DIV will include
4 French Heavy Artillery units at start.

Stats: 15 (Bombard) 2(Range) 3(ROF) 140(Shield-cost).

Rocoteh

Nevertheless I suppose to make French artillery not that strong as the German. Allied artillery in general was not that good. There were bombings in which the allies fired millions of shells and had nearly no effect.

Adler

I mean a complete overhaul, where the first techs all nations get will be at the beggining rather than the end of the tree. while in this scenario many nations are already in the final age, the new plan is to put everyone at the same place there, except a few who will have some advancements.
Ah, I see. Do you have any specific plans already?

CellKu

Next version of TGW-DIV will include
4 French Heavy Artillery units at start.

Stats: 15 (Bombard) 2(Range) 3(ROF) 140(Shield-cost).

Rocoteh
Do you intend to use the new artillery graphic ("big dl") ? Or will you wait until TGW-BRI 2.1 with the release (meaning a "biq dl")?

CellKu

Adler17,

German artillery will still be much stronger
than French artillery.(As it was historical)

CellKu,

I will wait for TGW 2.1 and it
will thus be an biq-file.
(The new artillery-graphic will be used.)
I have had plans to turn TGW-DIV into
an "big download", but I want to avoid it,
since it can give the impression there have
been a "scenario-split".
I still regard TGW as one scenario with two versions.

Rocoteh

The game has been crashing when I go to check the tech tree...

When I click to go back to the 19th century the game crashes and the screen reads something like the following:

File Not Found: D7Lsmall.pcx

I know you guys are busy and all, but I was wondering what the prob might be...

I guess it isn't a big deal, but I am trying to develop a smaller version of your scenario as I mentioned earlier (a few months) that might work in real time play. I think I am going to give players the oppurtunity to form their own alliances though and start at the end of the 19th century era. I am going to try to re-download the art and text folder and see if that works.

Thanks,
BKGreatWarNut

BkGreatWarnut,

There is a PediaIcons-file on the front-page
of this thread that will solve the problem.
It should be moved to TGW/TEXT.

Its interesting to hear about your project.
I am looking forward to see it when it is completed.

Rocoteh

I am back :)

That is good to hear.
How many new graphics do you expect for 2.1?

Rocoteh

My complimentary Real Time MP scenario is completed. It can be found at the following location: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=96355

Uh oh, how do I ad the attachment that contains my map?

...I finally figured out how to attach my map so you guys can check it out.