Another WW2 scenario

I have to agree with you on North Africa, and have gone ahead and fixed it. I had been making the situation even worse recently in the update I have been working on too, so good catch on that. I also added in Suez as a British holding next to Egypt and made it and Baghdad occupied. Replacing Jerusalem with Suez makes that into a usable canal route too.
Overall the North African theatre should be more of a stalemate that slightly favors the Allies now.

The war mongering hatred for the Axis leaders and Stalin are all lowered to a 1, although I think Mussolini was already at a 1 in version 7 of the scenario. If that's true I suppose there is simply a hard limit on how much war mongering an ai will take.

Then can you start off Italy Germany and Japan as friends from the start of the scenario? And make Germany in contact with Russia, as to make it even less likely that Russia will invade.

And Germany had a NAP with Russia so having them in contact would make sense.
 
I also have tank ideas if you're intersted...

Germany is missing the Tiger tank. Which was stronger then the panther. I figure you could replace mech infantry with it, and give it higher combat strength then the panther. With 2 or 3 movement. And being the Strongest tank on the market. With a very high price of course.

France should have the Char b1. It was a heavy tank produced before WW2. It should have higher combat strength then panzers, but less then panthers. With 2 oil needed for it. And 1-2 Movement.

Britain could have the Comet Tank. Which would be a late game heavy tank, that could match up with panthers and tigers.

Russia and USofA are pretty good on tanks, The Russian Kv-1 isn't neccessary as it wasnt much better then t-34s. US pretty much stalled at shermans.

Then one more German tank, Maus is a experimental super heavy tank. If you were to put that in it would have to be about twice as expensive as a tiger. With unprecedented Combat strength and health but only 1 movement. This would have to be buried behind everything pretty much.

Now of course these are just suggestions, Im not sure how far into tank development you want to go or if you want to keep it simple.
 
I also have tank ideas if you're intersted...

Germany is missing the Tiger tank. Which was stronger then the panther. I figure you could replace mech infantry with it, and give it higher combat strength then the panther. With 2 or 3 movement. And being the Strongest tank on the market. With a very high price of course.

France should have the Char b1. It was a heavy tank produced before WW2. It should have higher combat strength then panzers, but less then panthers. With 2 oil needed for it. And 1-2 Movement.

Britain could have the Comet Tank. Which would be a late game heavy tank, that could match up with panthers and tigers.

Russia and USofA are pretty good on tanks, The Russian Kv-1 isn't neccessary as it wasnt much better then t-34s. US pretty much stalled at shermans.

Then one more German tank, Maus is a experimental super heavy tank. If you were to put that in it would have to be about twice as expensive as a tiger. With unprecedented Combat strength and health but only 1 movement. This would have to be buried behind everything pretty much.

Now of course these are just suggestions, Im not sure how far into tank development you want to go or if you want to keep it simple.

Thanks for the ideas :). I'll see about adding in more tanks in the next update after I've managed to upload the one I already have ready. It has a lot of new things added in as is, plus I need to take a short break from modding.
Simply figuring out how to upload the mod so that everything works properly is looking like it will be chore.

As for the diplomacy issues, every civ should already start out in contact with every other civ. Unfortunately Worldbuilder won't allow pre-setting DoF in place between civs. It seems like that would be an easy thing to have included, but it's just not there. It's probably possible to setup something that would control major diplomacy actions through LUA, but that's not something I know how to use very well at the moment.

I made a small modification to the map layout between Leningrad and Warsaw to more accurately account for the Polish invasion. It also should make conquering Leningrad tougher than before. Attached is a picture of what it looks like a fair ways into a game.
 

Attachments

  • 2011-08-02_00002.jpg
    2011-08-02_00002.jpg
    287.1 KB · Views: 409
About the Tanks:
Germany: No Maus, only 2 were build so it isn't very realistic. If you want a sort of super heavy tank, i'd suggest the king tiger (more movement/bit more armour)
USA: Maybe the Pershing tank? (in stead of mech infantry)
USSR: the JS2 for later in the game. (or T34-85 but it looks the same so it isn't very cool ;), little more easy though)

Maybe it's too much tanks, but I think this is historically pretty accurate.. I'm not an expert though ;-)

Just like dlmt3 said, these are suggestions for if you want to more tanks..

Great mod :)
 
About the Tanks:
Germany: No Maus, only 2 were build so it isn't very realistic. If you want a sort of super heavy tank, i'd suggest the king tiger (more movement/bit more armour)
USA: Maybe the Pershing tank? (in stead of mech infantry)
USSR: the JS2 for later in the game. (or T34-85 but it looks the same so it isn't very cool ;), little more easy though)

Maybe it's too much tanks, but I think this is historically pretty accurate.. I'm not an expert though ;-)

Just like dlmt3 said, these are suggestions for if you want to more tanks..

Great mod :)


Well yeah the maus only had 2 built, but thats why its buried so far in the tech tree you couldnt get it for a while... and with a extremely high price it would be very hard to get.

Pershing could work, although the US primarily used Shermans.

The t34 was enough to match anything Germany through at it. IF he really wanted a second tank he could use the kv1 which was a soviet heavy tank.
 
oh, wow.. a lot has been added since the last time I came here. So I guess my post is already out of date before I make it...

I was going to say that I finally did get the worldbuilder to work... sometimes... and I had been fooling around with a few adjustments.

I changed the scenario in the following ways:

1. I set Russia at war with Germany and Italy at the start of the scenario. They are also at war with Finland and Poland (since there is only one city in Poland it is impossible for the Nazis and Soviets to split the country as they agreed on... but at least they both have a chance to take Warsaw).
2. To balance the fact that the Axis starts at war with Russia, and also to make the scenario more realistic since France was way way overpowered... I severely weakened France. I took away most of their units in Europe and also greatly reduced the defenses of the French cities on the European mainland. I also set Germany to war with Belgium and reduced their defenses, as well. I deleted most of the French naval vessels in the Mediterranean and Atlantic. This typically results in Germany conquering France or at least Paris within the first 1-3 turns of the scenario, which I feel is better.
3. In an attempt to get the USA in on the action, I start them out at war with all 3 Axis powers. I know they didn't technically enter the war until later, but they were already helping out at this point and would enter on the allies side just a very short while later.... sooner than the AI can get off it's ass and actually get to Japan or Europe to do anything anyway.

Those were the major changes. I did a few more tweaks here and there, like taking away the Arabs' destroyer.

Peramanent War/Peace:
this was the biggest thing bringing the scenario down IMO, and I see that it was already corrected. But in my own version of the scenario I did as follows:
permanent war:
I left permanent war in place for some countries that seemed mutually committed to each other's complete destruction. This was not as detrimental to the scenario since it made more sense historically, and also did not prevent you from winning a domination victory.
USA is at permanent war with Japan, Germany, and Italy.
France is at permanent war with Germany and Italy.
UK is at permanent war with Germany and Italy.
Russia is at permanent war with Germany and Italy.

I think that's it. The fact that I left permanent war in place with some countries usually preoccupies the big players enough that they don't start declaring war on their allies... most of the time. but once in a while you get a random declaration of war and I think that's more realistic especially in a scenario that is played for a full 150 turns.

Permanent peace... this is more damaging to the scenario, I think. But I still kept it in place for a few countries. Some countries have a tendency to declare war with others simply by virtue of the fact that they are right next to each other... but... in real life it is inconceivable that the two countries would ever *really* go to war. Canada and the USA, for example.
Germany has a permanent peace with Italy. With enemies surrounding both of them, and the observed tendency for them to start denouncing each other in the scenario, this seemed necessary.
USA has permanent peace I think with Canada and the UK.
UK has permanent peace with the USA, Australia... maybe India.
I think that's all. I might have put France at peace with the UK or the USA too, not sure.

Win conditions:
I added the victory condition of Diplomatic Victory. I thought that this made perfect sense in the context of a WW2 scenario (you build the United Nations and negotiate peace)... also it makes it possible to win the scenario even if you are playing as one of the nations that has permanent peace in place with another country (though that list is much smaller than it used to be).

I played another game with the Chinese since I had the most fun playing as them before. Events unfolded closer to history at first (Russia did not declare war on me for no reason). Since rhett had already weakened the Chinese position it was harder to repel the Japanese invasion but I actually still managed to keep them from taking any cities on the mainland except for Hong Kong. Control of Hong Kong passed back and forth until I finally gave up for about 10 turns, fortified my other cities, and then was able to refocus on HK and take it back.
The rest of the scenario unfolded somewhat predictably with a couple of exceptions. The USA conquered Mexico as it often does (maybe should put permanent peace in place there, too, though all in all a US-Mexican war in the 1940s is much more plausible than a US-Canadian war). After I made peace with Japan I started conquering Southern Asia including Thailand, northern India, and Persia. One surprise was that Spain became a very powerful and aggressive player in this scenario, taking most of Africa away from Britain, France, and Italy.

About 30 turns in an alliance of 10-15 nations declared war on Hitler, including me. The UK took over Norway and Belgium (both under Nazi control at the time). The USSR took Finland, Poland, Hungary and Romania.
At that point I declared war on Russia because I had no clear path to Germany otherwise. I quickly took Stalingrad, Minsk, and Moscow... then turned my army west, liberated Warsaw, and occupied Berlin and Hamburg.

At this point I am the most powerful nation in the world. I am aiming at winning a diplomatic victory since I have also liberated Seoul, Hungary, Romania, and Finland... and made quite a few allies with other city-states, so my vote count is getting pretty high.
 
I have only mongol DLC and i tried the scenario but i'm not able to load it. I never find the map, my MAP folder is empty. Could you give me any help ?

I do not have the Spain, Inca, Babylon, Polynesia DLC, either.

My solution to this: open up the map in WorldBuilder. Go to the scenario editor. There should be a list of civilizations.
Find the civs that you do not have the DLC for (Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Iraq, Australia)... and then just move them down the list making them the last civs on the list in the scenario.

You won't be able to play as these civs... but it will make it so that you can see and select any of the other civs. The scenario should be perfectly playable... what it will do is that upon starting the scenario for the first time, the computer will randomly select other civs to fill in the blanks.
The only problem with this really is that it can be confusing as you will have multiple leaders with the same name. For instance, in my last game Genghis Khan was the leader of both Spain and Brazil.
 
I made a small modification to the map layout between Leningrad and Warsaw to more accurately account for the Polish invasion. It also should make conquering Leningrad tougher than before. Attached is a picture of what it looks like a fair ways into a game.

Haven't tried the new map yet, but just glancing at the attached photo... I see that the USSR is still absolutely massive... but... is it my imagination or did the USA get even smaller? Maybe to compensate for the growth of Europe and Africa which are now pretty huge compared to their real world size.
I can see a downside to this as the USA will not be likely to develop into the superpower that it became in the closing years of the war and might not be a match for the USSR in the later stages of the scenario unless you somehow seriously tweaked their terrain/cities.

Since the USA is already such a non-entity in this scenario, I think due to the fact that they are separated from most of the action by two oceans, nothing should be done to make them even weaker. They played an absolutely pivotal role in real history but every time I've played through the scenario with the US as an AI... they do nothing except once in a while annex Mexico. Even in my modified scenario where they start at war with all the Axis powers.. and they have territory close to Japan since the Philippines are their puppet... still... they never interact with the European, Asian, or African civs. Maybe they need a stronger navy.
 
Haven't tried the new map yet, but just glancing at the attached photo... I see that the USSR is still absolutely massive... but... is it my imagination or did the USA get even smaller? Maybe to compensate for the growth of Europe and Africa which are now pretty huge compared to their real world size.
I can see a downside to this as the USA will not be likely to develop into the superpower that it became in the closing years of the war and might not be a match for the USSR in the later stages of the scenario unless you somehow seriously teaked their terrain/cities.

On the latest version. (the one before the ones hes trying to upload today) The U.S. has the largest army in the world. And as Germany i have spread my reach far and have a massive army, but the U.S. is ahead with 25% more military power then i have.
And Britain and France aren't large at all. None of Europe is. And Russia is that large in the real world...
 
On the latest version. (the one before the ones hes trying to upload today) The U.S. has the largest army in the world. And as Germany i have spread my reach far and have a massive army, but the U.S. is ahead with 25% more military power then i have.
And Britain and France aren't large at all. None of Europe is. And Russia is that large in the real world...

In the games I have played the USA often builds up a huge military.

But do they ever use it? Almost never. Like I said, once in a while they conquer Mexico... but I have never once seen them ever conquer a single city that is not in North America.

Have you? I guess maybe the real solution is to fix the AI... as noted previously in this thread... the Civ V AI is terrible at handling its navy or conquering territory across oceans.
The British seem capable of taking on mainland Europe (I've personally witnessed them take over Norway and parts of Europe from the Nazis), and AI Japan has no trouble taking large chunks of mainland Asia from AI China.
Maybe that's because the amount of water between Japan and China is not very much. Likewise between England and France or Scandinavia. I don't know. Or maybe it's because they start with larger navies. The USA is able to build up a massive army (mostly because they never fight anybody) but the navy they start with is not impressive.

No easy solution presents itself. I do think the main issue is with the AI, and as rhett lamented earlier... it's difficult to get the AI to play as you want it to. He had to make the German military larger to compensate for the AI's stupidity.

****


As to Russia being that large in the real world... well... yes and no...

first of all, yes Russia is the largest country in the world, but they appear even larger on maps including this one because of the fact that when you project a 3D surface on to a 2D surface the areas at the top and bottom of the map become larger. Russia, being at the top of the map, appears much larger than it actually is. On Civ maps, it doesn't just appear larger. It IS larger. It has more usable tiles. That's not really fair. Some scenarios, like Rhye's RFC scenario in Civ IV, compensates for this by making most of Russia unusable terrain- marshes or tundra. But in Civ V even tundra is pretty useful terrain. I guess you could make much of it ice.
Secondly, there is more to a map than just matching up to geography. This scenario is a perfect example as you can see... when the scenario creator decided to redo the whole map to make Europe larger. Europe on this map is much, much bigger than it is in reality. That's because it improves gameplay. Populations in Europe are very condensed and the cities there due to the industrial revolution were far more productive than most cities elsewhere in the world in the 1940s. If the map was perfectly proportioned to real-world geography it would be hard to give the European cities a realistic level of power/productivity versus cities elsewhere.
Also, just the fact that you can't cram that many cities into a small area means that there are far fewer cities in the European countries. In the original map, Germany had only two actual German cities: Hamburg and Berlin. The USSR has dozens of cities. But in real life in 1940 there were more notable cities in Germany than there were in Russia.
In Russia, almost all of the population and industry was concentrated west of the caucuses. The huge vast wilderness to the east was sparsely populated and almost entirely agrarian. But... in Civ V, every city can potentially become highly productive and populous.
You can balance this a little bit by making the European and American cities more developed, and putting improvements on the terrain around those cities (which rhett already did). It's just difficult to balance it properly and given enough time.. the civ with the most cities is most likely going to have the largest population, highest production, etc.
To balance this I would propose either making the territory of the USSR smaller.... or spreading out their cities more. If the US and the USSR had the same number of cities then the extra territory the USSR had wouldn't matter as much.
 
In the games I have played the USA often builds up a huge military.

But do they ever use it? Almost never. Like I said, once in a while they conquer Mexico... but I have never once seen them ever conquer a single city that is not in North America.

Have you? I guess maybe the real solution is to fix the AI... as noted previously in this thread... the Civ V AI is terrible at handling its navy or conquering territory across oceans.
The British seem capable of taking on mainland Europe (I've personally witnessed them take over Norway and parts of Europe from the Nazis), and AI Japan has no trouble taking large chunks of mainland Asia from AI China.
Maybe that's because the amount of water between Japan and China is not very much. Likewise between England and France or Scandinavia. I don't know. Or maybe it's because they start with larger navies. The USA is able to build up a massive army (mostly because they never fight anybody) but the navy they start with is not impressive.

No easy solution presents itself. I do think the main issue is with the AI, and as rhett lamented earlier... it's difficult to get the AI to play as you want it to. He had to make the German military larger to compensate for the AI's stupidity.

Why would he want the USA to start a war with anyone? Before and during World War 2 The U.S. Was isolationist. So he actually made it perfect by them not invading anybody.
 
As to Russia being that large in the real world... well... yes and no...

first of all, yes Russia is the largest country in the world, but they appear even larger on maps including this one because of the fact that when you project a 3D surface on to a 2D surface the areas at the top and bottom of the map become larger. Russia, being at the top of the map, appears much larger than it actually is. On Civ maps, it doesn't just appear larger. It IS larger. It has more usable tiles. That's not really fair. Some scenarios, like Rhye's RFC scenario in Civ IV, compensates for this by making most of Russia unusable terrain- marshes or tundra. But in Civ V even tundra is pretty useful terrain. I guess you could make much of it ice.
Secondly, there is more to a map than just matching up to geography. This scenario is a perfect example as you can see... when the scenario creator decided to redo the whole map to make Europe larger. Europe on this map is much, much bigger than it is in reality. That's because it improves gameplay. Populations in Europe are very condensed and the cities there due to the industrial revolution were far more productive than most cities elsewhere in the world in the 1940s. If the map was perfectly proportioned to real-world geography it would be hard to give the European cities a realistic level of power/productivity versus cities elsewhere.
Also, just the fact that you can't cram that many cities into a small area means that there are far fewer cities in the European countries. In the original map, Germany had only two actual German cities: Hamburg and Berlin. The USSR has dozens of cities. But in real life in 1940 there were more notable cities in Germany than there were in Russia.
In Russia, almost all of the population and industry was concentrated west of the caucuses. The huge vast wilderness to the east was sparsely populated and almost entirely agrarian. But... in Civ V, every city can potentially become highly productive and populous.
You can balance this a little bit by making the European and American cities more developed, and putting improvements on the terrain around those cities (which rhett already did). It's just difficult to balance it properly and given enough time.. the civ with the most cities is most likely going to have the largest population, highest production, etc.
To balance this I would propose either making the territory of the USSR smaller.... or spreading out their cities more. If the US and the USSR had the same number of cities then the extra territory the USSR had wouldn't matter as much.

I actually have addressed this in my latest update. I changed about 75% of the grassland terrain in what is supposed to be Siberia into tundra terrain. I also lowered the latitude for where snow terrain shows up in Siberia. This has the desired effect from what I've seen in my tests, as the USSR no longer gets huge populations anywhere in Siberia.

About the update, I plan to set aside some time this weekend to finally get it posted. It will definitely have to be broken into about 3 parts now. I've been dreading and putting it off, as I'm pretty certain it will be frustrating. No point in just sitting on it though.
 
Why would he want the USA to start a war with anyone? Before and during World War 2 The U.S. Was isolationist. So he actually made it perfect by them not invading anybody.

They were isolationists before WW2? I don't think so.
Before the Spanish-American War, or maybe even WW1, you could make this argument.
But this isn't even before WW2. It's during WW2. By 1939, the USA was already deeply involved in the war. By 1941, they were in open war against all of the Axis powers. Without them, D-Day would have had no hope of being successful. The allies would not have successfully retaken France or invaded Italy. If Russia had not fallen, they would have likely declared armistice since Hitler's army would not have been divided. and Japan would have retained control over all of East Asia. With the exception of the British retaking Burma, the Americans took them on the Japanese in the Pacific almost single-handedly.

If they start at peace with everyone in this scenario.. is the above likely to play out? ha. no. Actually I've found that it's much more likely that they will become allies with Germany and Japan and invade Mexico.

So... far from being perfect... having the US start out uninvolved in the war leads to completely unrealistic games that will never resemble the actual events of WW2.
I've experimented and played through this scenario many times with many different civs. I find it's much better to start the USSR and USA at war and make France much weaker.. at least if you care at all about events playing out at least *somewhat* similar to history.
Though no matter what, unless you play as the Americans it is unlikely in this scenario that they will ever do anything. The AI is just not proactive enough.
 
I actually have addressed this in my latest update. I changed about 75% of the grassland terrain in what is supposed to be Siberia into tundra terrain. I also lowered the latitude for where snow terrain shows up in Siberia. This has the desired effect from what I've seen in my tests, as the USSR no longer gets huge populations anywhere in Siberia.

About the update, I plan to set aside some time this weekend to finally get it posted. It will definitely have to be broken into about 3 parts now. I've been dreading and putting it off, as I'm pretty certain it will be frustrating. No point in just sitting on it though.

I'll have to try it out then.

and... totally relate about the anxiety around modding...

I have a world map from Civ IV that I have been working on for 4 years and have yet to finish. It takes a lot of patience and perserverance. I know that it helps to have feedback from people who enjoyed your work... and hope you realize that's why I'm here posting so many comments. If I didn't like the scenario I wouldn't be playing it so much. At this point I think I've started at least 10 different games using some version of this scenario and finished (or played to a point where I could not play any longer or victory was a foregone conclusion) at least 4 or 5 times.
 
They were isolationists before WW2? I don't think so.
Before the Spanish-American War, or maybe even WW1, you could make this argument.
But this isn't even before WW2. It's during WW2. By 1939, the USA was already deeply involved in the war. By 1941, they were in open war against all of the Axis powers. Without them, D-Day would have had no hope of being successful. The allies would not have successfully retaken France or invaded Italy. If Russia had not fallen, they would have likely declared armistice since Hitler's army would not have been divided. and Japan would have retained control over all of East Asia. With the exception of the British retaking Burma, the Americans took them on the Japanese in the Pacific almost single-handedly.

If they start at peace with everyone in this scenario.. is the above likely to play out? ha. no. Actually I've found that it's much more likely that they will become allies with Germany and Japan and invade Mexico.

So... far from being perfect... having the US start out uninvolved in the war leads to completely unrealistic games that will never resemble the actual events of WW2.
I've experimented and played through this scenario many times with many different civs. I find it's much better to start the USSR and USA at war and make France much weaker.. at least if you care at all about events playing out at least *somewhat* similar to history.
Though no matter what, unless you play as the Americans it is unlikely in this scenario that they will ever do anything. The AI is just not proactive enough.

On the isolationists, that is debatable. I don't really want to get deep into it, as I'm a little foggy on the facts and don't feel like researching them now. But, I would recommend checking out some of the old polls about public opinion for entering the war before Pearl Harbor. They were pretty weak. Even after Pearl the American people were still generally opposed to warring in Europe. It was Hitler that brought the USA into the war by declaring war. This was 1 of his top blunders of the war too, as there is no telling on how long the US would have waited otherwise.

On the newer map I have seen the US declare war on Japan occasionally. They even manage to capture an island now and then too. I haven't played long enough after this happened to see what else they can do though.
 
They were isolationists before WW2? I don't think so.
Before the Spanish-American War, or maybe even WW1, you could make this argument.
But this isn't even before WW2. It's during WW2. By 1939, the USA was already deeply involved in the war. By 1941, they were in open war against all of the Axis powers. Without them, D-Day would have had no hope of being successful. The allies would not have successfully retaken France or invaded Italy. If Russia had not fallen, they would have likely declared armistice since Hitler's army would not have been divided. and Japan would have retained control over all of East Asia. With the exception of the British retaking Burma, the Americans took them on the Japanese in the Pacific almost single-handedly.

If they start at peace with everyone in this scenario.. is the above likely to play out? ha. no. Actually I've found that it's much more likely that they will become allies with Germany and Japan and invade Mexico.

So... far from being perfect... having the US start out uninvolved in the war leads to completely unrealistic games that will never resemble the actual events of WW2.
I've experimented and played through this scenario many times with many different civs. I find it's much better to start the USSR and USA at war and make France much weaker.. at least if you care at all about events playing out at least *somewhat* similar to history.
Though no matter what, unless you play as the Americans it is unlikely in this scenario that they will ever do anything. The AI is just not proactive enough.

Yeah good idea! Start the USSR and USA at war! Because when Japan attacked america they ended up declaring war on the USSR too! God your dumb arent you?

And btw the U.S. public greatly opposed war, of course FDR wanted to enter on Englands side but never was able too because the public would hate it. And since you cant gift units like with the lend lease act, the only way to time the U.S. entrance into the war, is to script Japan declaring war on the U.S. Then Germany and Italy doing the same.
 
Yeah good idea! Start the USSR and USA at war! Because when Japan attacked america they ended up declaring war on the USSR too! God your dumb arent you?

And btw the U.S. public greatly opposed war, of course FDR wanted to enter on Englands side but never was able too because the public would hate it. And since you cant gift units like with the lend lease act, the only way to time the U.S. entrance into the war, is to script Japan declaring war on the U.S. Then Germany and Italy doing the same.

No I'm not dumb, but apparently you are.

I meant start the USSR at war with Germany and Italy, and start the USA at war with Japan, Germany, and Italy.

F you very much, dumbass.
 
No I'm not dumb, but apparently you are.

I meant start the USSR at war with Germany and Italy, and start the USA at war with Japan, Germany, and Italy.

F you very much, dumbass.

You said start the USSR and USA at war. But whatever.

And like i said, the only way to make it historically accurate is to have scripted events at accurate times.
 
You said start the USSR and USA at war. But whatever.

And like i said, the only way to make it historically accurate is to have scripted events at accurate times.

Not with each other. Don't try to school me on English or history, I know both backward and forward.

Scripted events would be more accurate, yes, but if you read the whole thread rhett already said he wasn't sure how to make scripted events. I don't either. Using the worldbuilder this was the best solution I could come up with to make it more realistic.
 
Not with each other. Don't try to school me on English or history, I know both backward and forward.

Scripted events would be more accurate, yes, but if you read the whole thread rhett already said he wasn't sure how to make scripted events. I don't either. Using the worldbuilder this was the best solution I could come up with to make it more realistic.

Then it's not realistic at all, if the US is at war from the start they never build up a large army, and most likely lose most of it at sea. With Japans warmongering they will declare war on the U.S. It has happened each time ive played this, starting the U.S. at war with Germany Italy and Japan will either

A. Result in the U.S. France and England raping Germany within the first 15 turns.

B. Result in the U.S. losing every one of thier units at sea in a attempt to invade only to encounter U-Boats.

And since most of japans army is in China the U.S. will lose a lot of thier army at sea against japan.

Only real way to do it is to either figure out how to script events, or let things play out. You for some reason either want to start the U.S. at war with the world, or make the U.S. attack the world, both of those are unrealistic.
 
Top Bottom