BTS 1939 scenario feedback
- Thread starter Ahriman
- Start date
asioasioasio
Fallout Scrubber
Tremendous work asioasioasioSome substantial tweaking is in order though!
The army compositions have far too much armor in them. I'm not sure what the right % is, but maybe 25% tops is reasonable to shoot for? Armor hammer cost and GPT upkeep need to be higher.
The early AT infantry graphic should be an AT gun. Till late 42 there were only AT rifles, but these wouldn't be independent units, so only AT guns make sense. The strength is fine. In 43 the PIAT, Panzerfaust, and Bazooka started to appear so the graphic would be ok then.
]Yes, this non recoil antitank weapons were discovered later. But since AT Gun is seperate unit it should be equipped with antitank riffles - like for example this one
http://www.1939.pl/uzbrojenie/polskie/piechota/karabin_ppanc_ur35/index.html
Strong enough to penetrate than with armor thick less than 20 cm (so good against Pz I and Pz II) and kill the crew. It would be to hard to recognize unit and additional models needs to be done - I simplified it and use the same model for both units.
It has strong bonus against tanks. I agree with Ahriman and makke that the problem is elswhere - the Soviets are to strong.
OK I'll fix it.
Nice ideas, could you also make other historical events like: war triggers. Split To Vichy, etc.? I would gladly use your help!
Yeah it'll be months in next version
And I agree with ships - they'll be more expensive, and with ability yto bombard coast they would be important power.
I used parameters from Wikipedia + own calculations (in Excel - since I'm accountant in RL
) to set up units parameters. I don't see why T-26 should be much different from BT-whatever. They used the same gun and MG, The armor was similliar. The only difference was faster speed of BTs using Christies suspension - so it has 3 moves, greater escape chance and slightly bigger strenght, and of course cost).The reason why some nations have 2-3 bombers, tanks, fighter, etc in one tech are these:
China (Taiwan) can build only F_86_SABRE
Netherlands can build only GLOSTER_METEOR
Finland can build only DE_HAVILLAND_VAMPIRE
Great Britain can build all of them (because they used all of them): DE_HAVILLAND_VAMPIRE, GLOSTER_METEOR, F_86_SABRE Eliminating one of the unit would mean that one of the nation won't build jet fighter.
Yeah the mod (like civ4 too) is still to armor-centric (tough less than Warlords).
* * *
OK
Choosing this civic i thought of Munich treaty and phony-war
I'm not sure if i would like set civics without possibility to change it without event.
Hmm it starts with war only with Germany. Maybe Italy declared war.
Great work on your mod Asio
I've also have a few comments but I'm unsure where to put them I will post some here :
I have noticed a maximum limit on the amount of damage inflictable to enemy ships. I don't believe that there should be one.
Thx
So if I understan good ships cannot be sunken from air?
Part of strategical bombarding
how they produced equipment for Germany? I don't understand.
Only confucianism appears or are other icons? I must check again this .tga
I have no idea why it's happening, but similliar impression i had playing civ many time
The strength of ships are unbalanced :
I basicly tweaked settings from BTS - I'm noob in Navy Theme. So Destroyers should sank more expensive Battleships?
I doubt the flexibility of Machine Gun Units to intercept fighter units strafing them.
And it is - it has many machine gunners wich shouldn't make much harm Germany. Besides I already heared opinion that France is to weak
RevolutionDCM will be added. So this option too.
Thx I'll check it
The get much experience - it's possiblke to make units with promotion amphibious warfare.
It was used commonly to 60's/70's (it's even now used in Africa against mosquitos spreading Malaria in Africa) far beyond tech tree.
-----------
I agree. I already have button for 'Political prosecution'
I had mines (tough land) in Warlords version and I was very unhappy from the fact how they worked.
Part of RevolutionDCM - so on to do list
Great idea for events. primordial stew would you like to make them?
I have no idea. But the Warlords version is imo worst than this.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Asio,
I think you're thinking a bit too much about historical weapons and a bit less about fun gameplay design.
Every unit needs to have a role; there must be some reason why you would build it.
Why would you ever build a strength 16 tank with 2 moves when you could build a strength 18 tank with 3 moves from the same tech?
Why would you ever build a strength 9 range 8 fighter when you could build a strength 11 range 8 fighter with the same tech?
Higher strength is so significant in the civ engine that a small difference in hammer costs will still never make you want to buy the cheaper unit.
Re naval units, you should make each unit have a role.
Destroyers should be mobile and good vs subs.
Subs should be for taking out transports and battleships. [Consider the Marksmen promotion from Fall From Heaven 2, that lets assassin-units target the weakest unit in the stack.]
Battleships should be very high strength, and demolish cruisers and destroyers, but slow and very expensive.
Cruisers should be a compromise between destroyers and battleships; faster than battleship but lower strength, slower than a destroyer but higher strength. You could also give them a (slightly ahistoric) role as AA defenders.
* * *
Some specific comments:
AT guns should be far more prevalent and effective than hand-held infantry AT.
I would suggest anti-tank rifles/bazooks/panzerfaust etc. be a Promotion available to infantry that gives +% vs armor, and then have anti-tank guns as the primary anti-tank unit.
Also have anti-tank guns as defensive weapons, separate from assault guns like StuGs.
See my comments above: gameplay. If you have two units that are basically the same but one is superior, then you're really just adding clutter by putting them in the game. You aren't even adding diversity, since players will only ever build the better one.
Obviously historical accuracy is important, but gameplay within the engine is even more important. There needs to be a reason why the player should build any given unit.
Well, munich is 38. By Sept 39 Britain is remilitarizing hard, and declares war after Poland is invaded.
Why not? You will get a much better historic feel, and much better balance, by forcing the major powers to use their historic civics.
There is no point in some of the civics designed to limit military buildup if the relevant faction just changes to the superior civic on turn 1.
The US military production needs to be held back significantly for the first year or two, otherwise the axis has no real chance.
Some of the civics are clearly superior to others, so if you want the weaker ones in the game you need to force them. Eg Britain as defensive, US as non-interventionist, etc.
Probably. But you need to make sure somehow that the main powers are on the right teams; this needs to be Germany/Italy vs US/UK/France/USSR. The other factions can be influenced by diplomacy. So there has to be some way to make sure that Italy can't just stay neutral.
Having them at war with the UK even ahistorically early will also help gameplay; if the war in north africa starts at some fixed point later it could be too easy for the human UK player to metagame and airlift a ton of units into Egypt in preparation and then have an overwhelming strike force against whatever ragtag mob Italy still has left in north africa.
I think only torpedo bomber aircraft should be able to sink ships from the air.
Normal fighters and tactical bombers shouldn't really be very effective against naval units.
Another alternative is just to add a very large strength penalty vs ships (-50%?) to all aircraft, and have cruisers and battleships get a decent AA intercept chance, and then have a Torpedo Bomber promotion for aircraft that cancels the penalty.
Destroyers should be for mobility and anti-submarine.
The AI Germany needs to easily roll through France. Keeping the nazis from conquering france should be nearly impossible.
I think you're thinking a bit too much about historical weapons and a bit less about fun gameplay design.
Every unit needs to have a role; there must be some reason why you would build it.
Why would you ever build a strength 16 tank with 2 moves when you could build a strength 18 tank with 3 moves from the same tech?
Why would you ever build a strength 9 range 8 fighter when you could build a strength 11 range 8 fighter with the same tech?
Higher strength is so significant in the civ engine that a small difference in hammer costs will still never make you want to buy the cheaper unit.
Re naval units, you should make each unit have a role.
Destroyers should be mobile and good vs subs.
Subs should be for taking out transports and battleships. [Consider the Marksmen promotion from Fall From Heaven 2, that lets assassin-units target the weakest unit in the stack.]
Battleships should be very high strength, and demolish cruisers and destroyers, but slow and very expensive.
Cruisers should be a compromise between destroyers and battleships; faster than battleship but lower strength, slower than a destroyer but higher strength. You could also give them a (slightly ahistoric) role as AA defenders.
* * *
Some specific comments:
AT guns should be far more prevalent and effective than hand-held infantry AT.
I would suggest anti-tank rifles/bazooks/panzerfaust etc. be a Promotion available to infantry that gives +% vs armor, and then have anti-tank guns as the primary anti-tank unit.
Also have anti-tank guns as defensive weapons, separate from assault guns like StuGs.
See my comments above: gameplay. If you have two units that are basically the same but one is superior, then you're really just adding clutter by putting them in the game. You aren't even adding diversity, since players will only ever build the better one.
Obviously historical accuracy is important, but gameplay within the engine is even more important. There needs to be a reason why the player should build any given unit.
Well, munich is 38. By Sept 39 Britain is remilitarizing hard, and declares war after Poland is invaded.
Why not? You will get a much better historic feel, and much better balance, by forcing the major powers to use their historic civics.
There is no point in some of the civics designed to limit military buildup if the relevant faction just changes to the superior civic on turn 1.
The US military production needs to be held back significantly for the first year or two, otherwise the axis has no real chance.
Some of the civics are clearly superior to others, so if you want the weaker ones in the game you need to force them. Eg Britain as defensive, US as non-interventionist, etc.
Probably. But you need to make sure somehow that the main powers are on the right teams; this needs to be Germany/Italy vs US/UK/France/USSR. The other factions can be influenced by diplomacy. So there has to be some way to make sure that Italy can't just stay neutral.
Having them at war with the UK even ahistorically early will also help gameplay; if the war in north africa starts at some fixed point later it could be too easy for the human UK player to metagame and airlift a ton of units into Egypt in preparation and then have an overwhelming strike force against whatever ragtag mob Italy still has left in north africa.
I think only torpedo bomber aircraft should be able to sink ships from the air.
Normal fighters and tactical bombers shouldn't really be very effective against naval units.
Another alternative is just to add a very large strength penalty vs ships (-50%?) to all aircraft, and have cruisers and battleships get a decent AA intercept chance, and then have a Torpedo Bomber promotion for aircraft that cancels the penalty.
He's saying the opposite; currently destroyer strength is too high relative to battleship strength.
Destroyers should be for mobility and anti-submarine.
France *should* be weak.
The AI Germany needs to easily roll through France. Keeping the nazis from conquering france should be nearly impossible.
Ahriman
Tyrant
More random thoughts:
a) Canada should be a UK vassal.
b) Remove the oil in Ireland. Add Baghdad and tweak the map slightly.
So to have oil output, UK must either: protect their naval oil off the coast of scotland, OR protect the middle east and have a supply route open, or trade for it from the US.
c) Tel Aviv should be Jerusalem; Tel Aviv was really not very important in 1939.
d) Tweak the river at Gibraltar so that the city is cutoff from Spain by the river, to make Gibraltar even harder to invade. Change the river around Gdansk so it is possible to invade it without a river crossing.
e) Limit Uranium to only 3 tiles on the map, so only the US, Soviets and Germany are capable of developing Nukes.
a) Canada should be a UK vassal.
b) Remove the oil in Ireland. Add Baghdad and tweak the map slightly.
So to have oil output, UK must either: protect their naval oil off the coast of scotland, OR protect the middle east and have a supply route open, or trade for it from the US.
c) Tel Aviv should be Jerusalem; Tel Aviv was really not very important in 1939.
d) Tweak the river at Gibraltar so that the city is cutoff from Spain by the river, to make Gibraltar even harder to invade. Change the river around Gdansk so it is possible to invade it without a river crossing.
e) Limit Uranium to only 3 tiles on the map, so only the US, Soviets and Germany are capable of developing Nukes.
LoneTraveller
Warlord
Others random thoughts :
- When I built the VolksHalle a window pops up but no movie is shown.
- My game doesnt have the font shown in the preview pics but I do have the rest of the theme.
- When upgrading an unit (ex : Red Guard I to Red Guard II) it would be nice if the uniform and weapons would change.
- Nation specific Generals (I saw a couple in the download section) with names specific for their country alone. (I tried this in RTW but I had problems with it)
- I think that Italy's Elite Infantry should be scuba divers who attack enemy ships in port and sinks them (cause their ground army sucked).
- The panzerJaeger Tiger Elefant's canon is too far from its turret.
- The number of national units should be dependant on the number of cities the civ owns.
- When I built the VolksHalle a window pops up but no movie is shown.
- My game doesnt have the font shown in the preview pics but I do have the rest of the theme.
- When upgrading an unit (ex : Red Guard I to Red Guard II) it would be nice if the uniform and weapons would change.
- Nation specific Generals (I saw a couple in the download section) with names specific for their country alone. (I tried this in RTW but I had problems with it)
- I think that Italy's Elite Infantry should be scuba divers who attack enemy ships in port and sinks them (cause their ground army sucked).
- The panzerJaeger Tiger Elefant's canon is too far from its turret.
- The number of national units should be dependant on the number of cities the civ owns.
I love the mod and the scenario and have been waiting for it for months. I do think the navies need to be reworked with country specific units. For example, American torpedoes did not work correctly during the first few years of the war. The fuses were set wrong and most of the torpedoes never detonated on impact. Plus, treaties limited the caliber and # of guns on certain countries ships, and crews were of different quality; thus making German and British Battleships unequal. Plus, ships of the same "class" ie Battleships, were not the same in size or # of guns anyway. So early units from certain countries could be less effective. Really there isn't any one size fits all with the navies.
The navies need the same attention to detail for ship classes that the land units got. Plus maybe giving the UK a trait which grants free promos to start.
I also liked the sub suggestion for Marksman and the more rock paper scissors approach.
The navies need the same attention to detail for ship classes that the land units got. Plus maybe giving the UK a trait which grants free promos to start.
I also liked the sub suggestion for Marksman and the more rock paper scissors approach.
I also think the land and air units had a lot of units which were identical except for the names. The Stug and the Wespe were essentially identical, why build one or the other? The same goes for a lot of the fighters. There must have been some difference in real life. One fighter must have been more manueverable and the other must have had more range. One was better in a dogfight and the other better at intercepting bombers. Etc.
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
Well, I've played this a little bit now as the Soviets. I have a couple of points...
First, I don't claim to be a great expert on World War II, but why does the Soviet Union start at war with Great Britain?
Secondly, I agree with those that each civ has too many units. Actually, I would say that there's too many different types of units as well, but I would settle for just having fewer of them at the outset. I would agree that there's a bit too much focus on historical accuracy and realism than on gameplay. The different classes of units are just dizzying. I mean, if there's a type of hardcore WWII enthusiast gamer who wants that level of depth, that's perfectly fine, but it might not be a bad idea to consider a more streamlined version for more casual players (such as myself
)
First, I don't claim to be a great expert on World War II, but why does the Soviet Union start at war with Great Britain?
Secondly, I agree with those that each civ has too many units. Actually, I would say that there's too many different types of units as well, but I would settle for just having fewer of them at the outset. I would agree that there's a bit too much focus on historical accuracy and realism than on gameplay. The different classes of units are just dizzying. I mean, if there's a type of hardcore WWII enthusiast gamer who wants that level of depth, that's perfectly fine, but it might not be a bad idea to consider a more streamlined version for more casual players (such as myself
)
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
I have done this in my mod for the initial ships, using promotions.
Spoiler :
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
I think it's a bad idea to give Machine Guns the ability shoot down aircraft. There's so many machine gun units! If players want to defend against air attacks, they should have to build units and buildings to protect against them.
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
A better option would be to give them a chance to intercept aircraft, which would break off the attack, but not enough to kill them.
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
But were machine guns even used for this? Didn't the planes of World War II fly too high for ground-based machine guns to hit them?
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
I am imagining the antics we see in "movies" with machine guns (and other auto-cannons). The attack is broken off but not destroy the plane.
i_diavolorosso
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2008
- Messages
- 446
I've played as the third reich for about 200 turn, and believe it or not, while i was at war with britain, and stored 70% of my troops to conquer the land, suddenly mussolini backstabbing me.
Is it possible to make them to have a permanent alliance??Because it weird that he declare war on me even he's friendly on me(while i'm at war with him, he's status is still friendly to me!)
.Is it possible to make them to have a permanent alliance??Because it weird that he declare war on me even he's friendly on me(while i'm at war with him, he's status is still friendly to me!
)
asioasioasio
Fallout Scrubber
I don't think more historical units had broken gameplay. Even it adds more flavour and smile (at least on my face ) when i can use historical and flavour units - if it won't i would just stay with civ's standard M4 Sherman, Supermarine Spitfire and Avro Lancaster - less work but imo also less fun.
It didn't broke gameplay, also because AI still chooses stronger units to build. The same option is for Human Player.
And units have different parameters (different parameters were used for different units combats: tanks. bombers, fighters, artillery) - depending on speed, armament (type and diameter of gun, number of MG - more provides additional strenght agains human units), thickness of armor, weight, number of built units, size of the shell, rate of fire, range, weight of carried bombs. I've put much time to this system to make it +- historicly correct, and sorry, but I won't change it to RTW clone where everything is more simpliefied. If it'll apear it will apear as standalone mod's mod, surelly i won't put so much effort into those units' xml.
For MachineGun - I was thinking about it too - it's weird to shot air units with land MG (tough possible - it's not the problem to penetrate even metal surface - so the pilot can be killed
). IIRC ability to shot down air unit with MG was introduced in patch 3.13. I left it right now, but it seems the ability to intecepting air units should be decreased (maybe to 10%).
What do you think? Leave this option weaker or throw it away?
For ships - yeah it could be more diversified. But I don't plan to change it soon.
) when i can use historical and flavour units - if it won't i would just stay with civ's standard M4 Sherman, Supermarine Spitfire and Avro Lancaster - less work but imo also less fun.It didn't broke gameplay, also because AI still chooses stronger units to build. The same option is for Human Player.
And units have different parameters (different parameters were used for different units combats: tanks. bombers, fighters, artillery) - depending on speed, armament (type and diameter of gun, number of MG - more provides additional strenght agains human units), thickness of armor, weight, number of built units, size of the shell, rate of fire, range, weight of carried bombs. I've put much time to this system to make it +- historicly correct, and sorry, but I won't change it to RTW clone where everything is more simpliefied. If it'll apear it will apear as standalone mod's mod, surelly i won't put so much effort into those units' xml.
For MachineGun - I was thinking about it too - it's weird to shot air units with land MG (tough possible - it's not the problem to penetrate even metal surface - so the pilot can be killed
). IIRC ability to shot down air unit with MG was introduced in patch 3.13. I left it right now, but it seems the ability to intecepting air units should be decreased (maybe to 10%). What do you think? Leave this option weaker or throw it away?
For ships - yeah it could be more diversified. But I don't plan to change it soon.
I didn't have idea this option exist when realising mod. Will be fixed that way in next patch, until the events in Python would be added - managing much better with peace and war declarations.
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
This mod looks like it is aimed at allowing people to try using differing types of units. RTW is more aimed at "what-if" scenarios.
Both of these mods can aimed at these different objectives.
Both of these mods can aimed at these different objectives.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Obviously it is up to you what you do with your mod. But I would suggest that there is no point in having units that are strictly dominated by other units, and that they don't really add diversity because no-one will ever build them.
And even historically speaking, there is usually a reason why some particular unit was built.
Maybe you could have more of them in a regiment; so even if tank X is stronger than tank Y on a 1v1 basis, that doesn't necessarily mean that a regiment of tank X's will be better than a regiment of Tank Y's, if the regiment of tank Y contains many many more actual tanks because of their
Another way you could achieve some variation is through leader traits.
So for example, you can represent the fact that Germans had excellent aircraft and tank crews and that brits had excellent pilots and sailors through leader traits.
Create a trait that gives combat 1 and interception 1 to all aircraft, or a trait that gives mobility 1 and combat 1 to all naval units.
And a trait that gives +combat 1 and drill 1 to all armored units.
This way german tanks/fighters with the same stats as soviet tanks/fighters would still lose to them, because of their better crews.
There is no reason why every leader in your mod needs to have only 2 traits; you can use leader traits to represent national superiority in training in partiuclar areas.
Italy or France for eg might have none of these types of traits at all.
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
I see this mod as a Unit vs Unit type as opposed to Formation vs Formation (i.e. RTW), where individual tanks and infantry combat abilities count for less than the overall combat performance of the whole formation (i.e. Division, Corps, Army, Army Group)
Since each major nation has unique units you can customise their values. I initially gave all my units promotions based on nationality and skills (but ran out of promotions
); then I updated the unit parameters that my promotions were based on (except for a few unique promotions e.g Leadership, Winter Warfare, etc.). However, all this changed in later versions of my mod (as I used the makeup of the military formations) to determine the combat bonuses. Additional promotions are added due to the effect of city buildings and Generals, etc.
generalstaff
Steadfast
I know someone probably mentioned something like this somewhere, but the Trucks seem too strong. In the first turn of the scenario, I ended up losing 3 infantry units to kill four trucks, which had killed 4 workers before I could even start (which is a separate issue I read is being taken care off). Maybe a solution, without modifying power, is to have Trucks only defend?
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
Oh... another thing I forgot about. Britain currently has the city of Dublin, but Ireland was an independent country at the time and a neutral during the war. I understand that it was too small and uninvolved to justify including them on a map this size, but the British should have Belfast (which was still under their control) rather than Dublin.
Similar threads
