[BtS MOD] Wolfshanze 1850-1920 Enhancement Mod v2.0

[Wolfshanze]

Like I've said a few times... upgrading compatibility with v3.17 is on my to-do list... but I want to wait and see what other improvements and stability can be made to v3.17 by Solver and/or Bhruic before I update my own mod... but an "official" v3.17-friendly Wolfshanze Mod is in the plans.

 

[Preslav]

Thanks, I'm all set!

 

[Wolfshanze]

Thanks, I'm all set!

Good... let me know what you think of the Wolfshanze Mod. Enjoy.

 

[c0d5579]

I've been playing this for a while now, and aside from the MAF issue when the game got too big (fixed now), I've had no problems with it. I do, however, have a couple questions...

What's the point of the Fallschirmjager unit as a UU for Germany, if statistically it's identical to the Paratrooper unit? It'd make more sense as another ethnic skin for Germany, or as a unit with distinguishing features. I'd suggest that the "distinguishing feature" would be that FJ start with the Paratrooper promotion from the Road to War mod (to reflect Crete, Norway, or even the Netherlands, where they went straight into action from drop), but I've had crap luck implementing that myself. Other alternatives include giving them Drill 1, which makes them on-par with SS units in terms of usefulness - one can jump in, the other has Drill 2, which is about a wash.

Are there any plans for re-skinning any of the modern units? I know the WW2 units were re-done, and I know the Gunship was re-done, but I'm almost dead certain that Mech. Inf. and Mobile SAM are using the default skins.

Finally, the Wish List - things I think would make sense, but don't care enough about to list separately, or that I think are way too complex to implement easily...

Paratrooper promotion as seen in RTW (see above). As it stands now, paratroopers in most games have more nuisance value than striking power.

Gurkha - UU for India - Rifleman replacement, Guerrilla I & II.

* Mi-24 Hind - UU for Russia, depends on Infantry Segregation, below.

Rhye's-like mercenary system - Since I originally came across the Gurkhas in their role as British troops, only to learn that they were contracted from Nepal... might need a "Nationalize" promotion that costs as though you were upgrading, but means that you could upgrade them later, keep mercenary troops at whatever tech level they were hired (so Riflemen stay Riflemen unless nationalized - accounts for Highlanders, Gurkhas, the Gardes Suisses of the later Bourbon kings...).

Infantry Segregation - One of the realities that the US Army ran into in the last decade is that mechanized infantry and leg infantry are not sufficiently different to warrant a separate MOS - you could drop a light infantryman into a mechanized unit and he'd adapt within a month. Same with airmobile. There are some significant differences in airborne units, but those are, in many cases, mostly in the heads of paratroopers, not in reality as seen by the rest of the world. So where I'm heading with all of this is infantry is infantry is infantry. It would make sense that they get stronger from, say, WW1 to now, so "Improved Infantry" and "Advanced Infantry" or some such less cumbersome unit names would follow, along the line of advancement now described by Infantry, Marines/Paratroopers, and Mechanized Infantry. The difference isn't in the infantrymen themselves, but rather in how they get to work - so I'd recommend, as long as I'm at it, two transport vehicles. One would be a helicopter, available in parallel with the Gunship (unless you're the Russians, in which case you could deploy a Hind UU that does both jobs, I suppose). The other is a land vehicle, similar in concept to the Bradley, Warrior, or BMP, which can be promoted along lines of utility - a scout line, which loses the transport capacity but can take Flanking and Sentry, an ADA line, which can Intercept, and a vanilla line, which basically means you didn't take the ADA or Scout promotions. Now, I know this has been implemented with varying degrees of success in other mods - Asio's WW2 mod does some of it, but the AI doesn't know how to use any of these toys, for instance. I also know, from reading through here, that it's way too complex to think will happen overnight, or probably at all. Still, it's something that I think makes more sense than the current way Civ4 implements infantrymen.

Anyway - there it is, my reasonable suggestions and my wild ones, lumped together.

 

[Wodan]

If Wolf invents gameplay for all new skins, it'll
1) be terribly unbalanced as some civs have tons of skins and some have none
2) be terribly unbalanced because it'll be impossible to balance that much new gameplay... something (several somethings) will be broken
3) will take a ton of work. Maybe you don't realize quite how many skins he's added.

Wodan

 

[Wolfshanze]

I've been playing this for a while now, and aside from the MAF issue when the game got too big (fixed now), I've had no problems with it. I do, however, have a couple questions...

I'm all ears...

What's the point of the Fallschirmjager unit as a UU for Germany, if statistically it's identical to the Paratrooper unit? It'd make more sense as another ethnic skin for Germany, or as a unit with distinguishing features. I'd suggest that the "distinguishing feature" would be that FJ start with the Paratrooper promotion from the Road to War mod (to reflect Crete, Norway, or even the Netherlands, where they went straight into action from drop), but I've had crap luck implementing that myself. Other alternatives include giving them Drill 1, which makes them on-par with SS units in terms of usefulness - one can jump in, the other has Drill 2, which is about a wash.

First-off... there's more then one case of a "UU" in the Wolfshanze Mod, where the only thing special/different from a default unit is the name alone... Fallschirmjager being one of them (other civs like the Chinese/Japanese have similar "UUs")... that's not a mistake, that's intentional. I just liked using the proper German name enough to make it a UU, even though statistically, they are no different then normal paratroopers... despite a common (erroneous) misbelief that I stacked Germany with a half dozen UUs, I did in-fact NOT do so. Only the Tank/Hvy Tank have a UU bonus, and both of them are smaller then the default Panzer bonus was.

If I were to give Germany another UU with special abilities, it would probably be the U-Boat, not the Fallschirmjager. I prefer to give UUs to nations that either had something exclusive, or used-implemented in a far superior role to their competitors... and while the Fallschirmjager sort of pioneered proper use of airdrops, they certainly weren't the only ones to acquire success in airdrops during WWII.

On the subject of Paratroopers, however, what you suggest from RtW is a gameplay change on that promotion... but it does sound intriguing (as a general promotion available to all Paratroopers). I'm not overly familiar with the RtW mod... is that feature strictly implemented in promotion via XML code, or is it something deeper in Python or DLL code that made that happen (or do you know?). If it's XML-alone, I'd probably look into implementing it. If it's beyond XML, I'd have to think about that a lot harder.

Are there any plans for re-skinning any of the modern units? I know the WW2 units were re-done, and I know the Gunship was re-done, but I'm almost dead certain that Mech. Inf. and Mobile SAM are using the default skins.

I certainly do reskin modern units... there are already a large number of modern units reskinned in the mod. Most of the Jets in the mod have custom looks for each nation, as do many of the modern Main Battle Tanks and (as mentioned) the Gunship Helicopters (as well as Infantry/Marines too)... that's a lot of custom modern units. All Mobile SAMs are default... to my knowledge, I don't even think there are any custom civ-flavored mobile SAMs out there (though I could be wrong). On mobile artillery, there ARE SOME custom flavored mobile artillery in the mod, but not a lot. At some point I'll probably do more, but I tend to focus on ages that either have a lot of models available and/or get played more often (pretty much everyone sees middle age and industrial units in every game, but I know a lot of folks have their game end or terminate about the time they reach the late-modern units, if not before).

 

[mamba]

On the subject of Paratroopers, however, what you suggest from RtW is a gameplay change on that promotion... but it does sound intriguing (as a general promotion available to all Paratroopers). I'm not overly familiar with the RtW mod... is that feature strictly implemented in promotion via XML code, or is it something deeper in Python or DLL code that made that happen (or do you know?). If it's XML-alone, I'd probably look into implementing it. If it's beyond XML, I'd have to think about that a lot harder.

I just took a look, it is more than just xml. At the very least it also is a change in the SDK (have not taken a look at Python, so I have no idea if there are changes there as well).

The xml promotion itself does not promote anything, all the actual handling is in the SDK (so the promotion is just like a switch to get the SDK to treat the unit differently).

 

[Xenomorph]

On mobile artillery, there ARE SOME custom flavored mobile artillery in the mod, but not a lot.

There aren't a lot of pull from. Most mobile artillery models are units from WWII. I really wish people would make more mobile artillery and mobile SAM's. Hell, we don't even have a Shilka!

 

[c0d5579]

Paratrooper Promotion
Yeah, my poking at the Paratrooper promotion showed it was more than just XML. That, I could probably do on my own.

Fallschirmjager as UU
In reference to the FJ as a unique unit - I'm all for using the proper name. I disagree with the implementation on other units - "katanaman" and "Varangian Guard" particularly bother me, because the katana as a katana evolved at the same cultural junction that would have represented Macemen from vanilla. Unfortunately, my personal linguistic interests were European, so I can't give you a better Japanese translation. "Bushi" might work for a general Japanese warrior for any period, though. The Varangians, as have been pointed out by others, were a Byzantine-specific group. I've read the argument through already, though, and I agree with your reasoning there.

Modern re-skins
As for the modern unit re-skins, I wasn't clear enough. I meant land units specifically. To be honest, at the scale you see them in Civ4, all modern MBTs look the same to me, if you take "modern" as sloped-armored angular, which excludes all of the Iosef Stalin T-xx derivatives. I was actually thinking of IFVs, Mobile SAM, and, yes, artillery, though, again, modern artillery tubes all look pretty much alike to me. I understand that they're the most easily neglected units, because, well... I spent years looking at them, and if they look alike to me...

Multiple Cultural UUs
On the subject of a UU as an area of cultural specialization, that's arguable. All of the maritime powers of the period had submarines of comparable performance to the Type VII; crew training is what made the difference there (and even then, you could argue that - look at the US in the Pacific). It's a problem I have with Civ4 in general, but it's another that can't be fixed without radical revision - adding another civic column for military emphasis around Military Science or Tradition, with most options (Land/Offensive, Land/Defensive, and Naval/Surface, as I think of them) opening then, and others opening at the appropriate tech level (Air/Strategic and Air/Tactical, around Air Superiority, and Naval/Submarine around Radio). Since your mod has, for the most part, avoided that kind of in-depth surgery, I'd figure that's another "Wish List" item for me. Pity I didn't think of it on the earlier post.

Anyway, all of this is in essence noise from the crowd; I've been posting to this mod because... well... you've managed a lot without becoming overly ambitious and producing Vapormod!(tm), or producing a mod that is unplayably slow no matter what. It's human nature to want more.

 

[Healz]

That sounds good but from the sounds of things, I don't think it will exist because not too many people seem to play into that era...

 

[Wolfshanze]

The Varangians, as have been pointed out by others, were a Byzantine-specific group. I've read the argument through already, though, and I agree with your reasoning there.

Well, they're not actually Byzantine, they were mercenaries from Nordic lands who just so happened to be employed by the Byzantines... so they are Vikings, not Byzantines... just because a mercenary works for country-x doesn't make their nationality or ethnicity country-x. If I leave America and get a job in China, that doesn't make me Chinese or from China. The other choice was keeping "Berserkers", which never even actually existed (a fantasy unit). Of course, as mentioned, I already covered this subject extensively earlier.

I also don't think "all MBTs look-alike"... quite frankly, I can easily tell the difference between a T-72 and an M1A1.

All of the maritime powers of the period had submarines of comparable performance to the Type VII; crew training is what made the difference there (and even then, you could argue that - look at the US in the Pacific).

I can't agree there... I'd take you to task on that one. You can't just look at tonnage or number of torpedoes carried and call all subs equal in performance. That's total BS. There's a LOT of factors that go into submarine design, in a number of different categories that effect performance and abilities that can only be enhanced, but not changed by a good crew. Does a good crew determine dive depth? Does a good crew decide speed or maneuverability of a sub? German subs did have a lot of technological advantages over subs of other nations at the time... if not against every sub from every nation in every category (and I never said that), you certainly can't say that "by and large" German subs were no-better then any other sub from any other nation (which is more or less what you summarized).

German subs had much deeper dive depths then subs of other nations on the whole... they tended to be easier to maneuver at depth as well. Crash times to depth (while certainly influenced by the crew, but not solely determined) were much better then their ponderous cousins of the British, US or Italian navies. I could go-on with a number of features that technically were superior in German sub designs, or even expand this to the late-war breakthoughs that clearly outclassed Allied subs in every category, but that's not what this is about. I'm more curious that you cast-aside the thought that national training programs and doctrine are afterthoughts that shouldn't be considered. If you were to say the men behind the machines are unimportant, then you could arguably toss-out half the UUs in the game as "well, that's the training of the men, not the technical achievements of the warpiece".

All I was saying... was that IF, I were to make a second true UU for Germany (with better abilities, not just a name change), I have for long thought the U-Boat stood out as a good candidate for such an honor... both by technical and by crew quality, training and doctrine (you can't take out a nations' superior doctrine... once again, that would rule-out half the UU's in the game). Of course that's a big if... I haven't even gone so far as to think what I would do to such a unit to make it special (without overdoing it of course).

I finally got the Wolfshanze Mod where I want it with major additions and (finally) stability... then some yahoo in Firaxis throws a monkey wrench out there and released v3.17... frankly, I would have been happy if Firaxis had never updated the game again... v3.13 with Bhruic was pretty good... now the big can of worms is open all-over again and I have to start worrying about changing my finally stable mod over to v3.17... that's my main concern right now.

That sounds good but from the sounds of things, I don't think it will exist because not too many people seem to play into that era...

That's a consideration too... to be honest... I've only played about two or three games where I even made it as far as modern armor. I tend to finish-off my opponents by the mid modern era (late WWII, or just starting on Jets and Modern Armor). I even did a poll once to find out if that was an oddity, or more of a "typical" result... turns-out most people do indeed finish their games before the modern era.

I don't deliberately ingore the modern era flavor units... but it is a bit two-fold... there's not as many of them available to put into the mod... and, I do tend to put it a bit on the backburner simply because those units don't get as much "play time" as the more older units that appear in pretty much every game.

 

[c0d5579]

Well, they're not actually Byzantine, they were mercenaries from Nordic lands who just so happened to be employed by the Byzantines... so they are Vikings, not Byzantines... just because a mercenary works for country-x doesn't make their nationality or ethnicity country-x. If I leave America and get a job in China, that doesn't make me Chinese or from China. The other choice was keeping "Berserkers", which never even actually existed (a fantasy unit). Of course, as mentioned, I already covered this subject extensively earlier.

... Except that they weren't even consistently Norse. Otherwise why exactly would there be a Saxon claimant to the English throne in the unit? They were Norse-flavored. The Byzantines thought of them as Norse, and their origins were Norse, but they were as authentically Norse as the army that fought at Yorktown was authentically American. Put another way, represented in-game, would you call the Azad Hind Legion an SS formation, or an Indian infantry formation?

I also don't think "all MBTs look-alike"... quite frankly, I can easily tell the difference between a T-72 and an M1A1.

That's because the T-72 was the last of the Stalin-lineage tanks, and maintained the domed turret shape that they'd used since 1945 - as I mentioned in my last. The Leopard and Abrams, though, both have the same angular hull and turret style, and when you're trying to decide which is which at the size of a postage stamp... not a lot to choose from. Keep in mind, this is very generalized on my part - it's certainly possible to make a super-detailed model of anything, but some of it gets lost in translation at that scale unless there are huge differences, like uniform color on musketeers, or the giant differences in body styling between the Hind and the Apache for the gunship.

I can't agree there... I'd take you to task on that one. You can't just look at tonnage or number of torpedoes carried and call all subs equal in performance. That's total BS. There's a LOT of factors that go into submarine design, in a number of different categories that effect performance and abilities that can only be enhanced, but not changed by a good crew. Does a good crew determine dive depth? Does a good crew decide speed or maneuverability of a sub? German subs did have a lot of technological advantages over subs of other nations at the time... if not against every sub from every nation in every category (and I never said that), you certainly can't say that "by and large" German subs were no-better then any other sub from any other nation (which is more or less what you summarized).

Did I mention tonnage or torpedoes carried? I was actually thinking in terms of tonnage sunk when I use US submarines as a point of comparison, and that's strictly deep-seagoing comparison, neglecting coastal U-boats and the S-class boats as not representative of most of the results produced. Though if you want technical specifications, the Germans never had to deal with the range the Americans considered routine in the Pacific, and neither the Germans nor the Americans ever thought that mounting airplanes on their submarines would amount to anything, unlike the Japanese. Even then, the technological advances which the Germans pioneered - the snorkel comes to mind - were neglected in favor of speedy deployment at the beginning of the war; by the time they were routine, you were looking at essentially the pattern for the post-war diesel-electric submarine (great, another unit niche - moves like a submarine, carries missiles like a boomer - and both sides in the Cold War deployed SSGs; the Soviets even fielded SSBs).

Regarding whether crew can affect dive depth - yes. A nervous crew won't push the boat as far, or they can push it too far. Only a crew that's trained to that edge will push it to or past where the steel should yield. Crew quality can both enhance and hinder; look at the early-war versus late-war performance of Soviet armor in Europe to see both.

(snip)... but that's not what this is about. I'm more curious that you cast-aside the thought that national training programs and doctrine are afterthoughts that shouldn't be considered. If you were to say the men behind the machines are unimportant, then you could arguably toss-out half the UUs in the game as "well, that's the training of the men, not the technical achievements of the warpiece".

That's actually the problem I have with the UUs. I mean, what sense does it make that on any random map, the Mongols, who have no access to horses, are supposed to evolve into a race of nomadic horse archers, or that the Romans, on the same random map, with no access to iron, evolve as a nation of heavy infantrymen? The UUs make sense on the Earth maps, given the conditions each culture evolves in (usually - I mean, there's nothing about the Byzantines, for instance, that begs for cataphracts). They don't make sense in a universalized setting, though. There's just no reason that the Germans would in all circumstances evolve superior tanks or tank doctrines; about the only exception to the universalization problem is the Japanese, at least based on the leader picks that go with the civilization. For similar reasons, I really think the Pentagon should have been called "General Staff System," and made more generalized. I'm sidetracking myself, though.

Summary: Why I think the men behind the machines should be disregarded is because they are just that - men. The game takes place on an abstracted scale. The machines should be disregarded for the same reason. The problem is that this argument leads to saying that only sweeping, national-level reforms make any difference, which is, to some extent, true, otherwise the army of Frederick the Great wouldn't have been any different from his neighbors. It also takes a lot of the fun out of the game.

All I was saying... was that IF, I were to make a second true UU for Germany (with better abilities, not just a name change), I have for long thought the U-Boat stood out as a good candidate for such an honor... both by technical and by crew quality, training and doctrine (you can't take out a nations' superior doctrine... once again, that would rule-out half the UU's in the game). Of course that's a big if... I haven't even gone so far as to think what I would do to such a unit to make it special (without overdoing it of course).

Makes sense. How I'd implement it (YMMV) is Flanking or Sentry at birth, to reflect greater coordination and the fact that so many of them did get back to port, just to go back out again. Giving them Flanking is especially attractive, since it opens up Navigation and Sentry as subsequent promotions. The reasoning for using a promotion, rather than a unit-specific bonus, is that there was a generation of crews from WW1 that obviously didn't sail in WW2, and neither did their boats, but the traditions and lessons learned conveyed themselves - and, conceptually, there's no reason they wouldn't on into the nuclear era.

I finally got the Wolfshanze Mod where I want it with major additions and (finally) stability... then some yahoo in Firaxis throws a monkey wrench out there and released v3.17... frankly, I would have been happy if Firaxis had never updated the game again... v3.13 with Bhruic was pretty good... now the big can of worms is open all-over again and I have to start worrying about changing my finally stable mod over to v3.17... that's my main concern right now.

Believe it or not, I'm waiting on you before I update to 3.17.

I don't deliberately ingore the modern era flavor units... but it is a bit two-fold... there's not as many of them available to put into the mod... and, I do tend to put it a bit on the backburner simply because those units don't get as much "play time" as the more older units that appear in pretty much every game.

Which is more or less what I figured. There's not a lot of outcry among the community for accurate SAM models.

Anyway, I'm sorry if this comes across as argumentative; like I said before, I'm here because you've got a mod that's not only playable but enjoyable, and though I recognize some of the changes I'd love to see are deeper changes than are really worth the time for anyone who's not being paid to do it, I have been trying to offer reasonable suggestions in addition to arguing minutiae.

 

[Wolfshanze]

DISCLAIMER:
Wolf is a grumpy old man... don't take anything he says personal... it's just his manner of speech... he actually doesn't hate everyone, he just sounds that way... you have to just understand Wolf-speak.

That's because the T-72 was the last of the Stalin-lineage tanks, and maintained the domed turret shape that they'd used since 1945 - as I mentioned in my last.

You originally complained about not being able to tell modern tanks apart in my mod... I mention the T-72, which you agree looks different, and all the while, at least a 1/3 of the modern tanks in my mod are based on the T-72, so there is a considerable variation in tanks in the Wolfshanze Mod... I have T-72s, T-60s, T-55s, M1A1s, Leopard-1 tanks, LeClercs & AMX30s, to name but some of the modern tanks... I would call that some very different looking modern tanks... when you ask me for diversification of modern units, are you looking at what I even did before saying "all modern tanks look alike"?

Did I mention tonnage or torpedoes carried? I was actually thinking in terms of tonnage sunk when I use US submarines as a point of comparison, and that's strictly deep-seagoing comparison, neglecting coastal U-boats and the S-class boats as not representative of most of the results produced. Though if you want technical specifications, the Germans never had to deal with the range the Americans considered routine in the Pacific, and neither the Germans nor the Americans ever thought that mounting airplanes on their submarines would amount to anything, unlike the Japanese. Even then, the technological advances which the Germans pioneered - the snorkel comes to mind - were neglected in favor of speedy deployment at the beginning of the war; by the time they were routine, you were looking at essentially the pattern for the post-war diesel-electric submarine (great, another unit niche - moves like a submarine, carries missiles like a boomer - and both sides in the Cold War deployed SSGs; the Soviets even fielded SSBs).

Wow... just... wow... what affiliation do you have with the US Navy Submariner force, because you sure seem to be and advocate of them without taking into any outside considerations (or logic)...

Let's start with your first premise... "what's so special about German U-Boats, all nations of the time had similar boats".

Ummm... no... that was just flat-out wrong... all nations didn't have submarines just as good as the Germans, and when I point this out, you ignore me and go on some sort of US Navy recruiting campaign, simply blowing-off a lot of logic and ignoring some very simple conclusions.

I'm not sure where you think tonnage-sunk equals quality of equipment. If the Germans and Americans both sunk the same amount of tonnage, that doesn't mean the submarine forces were of equal skill or technological sophistication... that's a HUGELY flawed premise.

Let's change your premise from tonnage to enemy killed by warriors... letting numbers of enemy killed mean the warriors are obviously technically equal like your premise states... right? Same logic applied.

Say Warrior-1 wears bearskin clothing and carries a wooden club... his opponent is 1,000 babies armed with rattles. Warrior-1 kills all 1,000 babies... impressive stats.

Warrior-2 wears a suit of full-plate armor and carries a two-handed broadsword... his opponent is 1,000 soldiers armed with machine guns and grenades. Warrior-2 kills 999 of his enemy before he is finally killed off.

So which warrior was better... which was more impressive... by your logic, warrior-1 is the better warrior, because, after all... he killed more opponents and did not die.

Your logic on technical abilities of submarines is completely unfounded. I just don't get where you're coming up with your conclusions.

"The Germans never had to deal with the Range the US had to?"... okay... so the Americans had to sail around longer... okay... that's pretty tough.... and I suppose sailing from Germany to the Gulf of Mexico is an easy thing and short ride too, eh? But yeah... obviously having to sail further means US subs are clearly better.

How about the Americans getting to face an enemy that never understood the concept of convoys, ASW, hedgehogs, DC throwers, airborne radar, carrier escort, long-range ASW air patrols, illumination lights and about 1,000 other things the allies threw at German U-Boats, while the Japs might be lucky to come up with a single destroyer tossing a few contact depth charges over the back of the ship (assuming the target ships were even escorted in the first place, which they rarely were).

Oh yeah... those kill numbers for the US were sure a lot harder to come-up with then the German kill numbers.

Your next quote was just as ludicrous...

Regarding whether crew can affect dive depth - yes. A nervous crew won't push the boat as far, or they can push it too far. Only a crew that's trained to that edge will push it to or past where the steel should yield.

Okay... so now diving depth is controlled by the crew not the sub... if I'm steel willed, I can make my sub go deeper, and if I'm a coward, my sub will crack at a much shallower depth.

Sorry, but no... German U-Boats had a much deeper dive depth rating then their counterparts... and my initial statement about U-Boats was to counter your conclusion that German U-Boats were somehow no-better then ANY of their contemporaries, not just the Americans (which German subs were still technically better then American counterparts, even if you're only comparing one on one, which is NOT what you initially stated).

For a guy that is upset about crew and training being factored into UUs of Civ4, you sure give up technical abilities of the subs themselves and quickly scramble for crew training to prove that only because of German crews were their subs better... that's just not fact, that's wishful thinking... it was a combination of both to be sure, but their subs were better, and they wracked up an impressive wartime record against ungodly odds... while the American Silent Service kill record was against a navy which didn't know what it was doing (if it did anything at all) when it came to ASW.


DISCLAIMER:
Wolf is a grumpy old man... don't take anything he says personal... it's just his manner of speech... he actually doesn't hate everyone, he just sounds that way... you have to just understand Wolf-speak.

 

[Wodan]

Just something to toss out there... not mentioned so far is disparity of targets. Inarguably the germans had a LOT more targets than the U.S. or other nations did. Personally I would think this would have a lot more influence on tonnage sunk than some minor difference in warfighting ability (whether based on technology or unit training).

Wodan

 

[c0d5579]

You originally complained about not being able to tell modern tanks apart in my mod... I mention the T-72, which you agree looks different, and all the while, at least a 1/3 of the modern tanks in my mod are based on the T-72, so there is a considerable variation in tanks in the Wolfshanze Mod... I have T-72s, T-60s, T-55s, M1A1s, Leopard-1 tanks, LeClercs & AMX30s, to name but some of the modern tanks... I would call that some very different looking modern tanks... when you ask me for diversification of modern units, are you looking at what I even did before saying "all modern tanks look alike"?

No, I said that I couldn't tell them apart at postage-stamp size aside from the domed-turret style the Soviets used. Can you tell the difference between rolled-steel sections on sight? Or, something more immediate to this argument - can you tell the differences between various models of the M4 carbine on sight? The AK family of rifles?

Also, please scroll up a couple posts - I clarified, when I said "modern units," I referred specifically to Mobile SAM and Mechanized Infantry, because I am 100% certain that Soviet troops didn't roll around in anything that looked like a Brad or a Warrior.

Wow... just... wow... what affiliation do you have with the US Navy Submariner force, because you sure seem to be and advocate of them without taking into any outside considerations (or logic)...

None whatsoever; I was an infantryman, among other things. As for my comments about submarines in general, remember, we're talking about a game where everything is abstracted out to the point where you can't even tell what size formation we're talking. At that level, can you honestly tell me that there are enough differences between one submarine and another, provided the same power plant and weapon types?

Look, I didn't go off on a rant about how wonderful German airborne forces were compared to the rest of the world's. None of the Allies managed anything like Crete, for instance - the closest they came was Market-Garden. None of the Allies fielded a credible squad-level LMG (and don't tell me about the BAR, it weighs 20 pounds and has a rate of fire slightly faster than dirt) until they ripped off the M60 from the MG42 (and having handled an M60, I can tell you... it's an MG42), or until the Minimi entered service (happened in parallel, so take your pick). That's because, in Civ 4 game mechanics, there isn't a lot to choose between them. Same applies to submarines.

Every single post, I've tried to offer constructive statements as well as argument; while I get plenty of argument back, the rest is glossed over. I've tried to be conciliatory, and what I get is an increasingly frustrating argument where I say the same things over and over, and then you say the same things over and over. I don't post here often, as you can see from my extensive posting history. I posted here because you do good work, and I'd hoped to contribute to that. I did not do it so I could argue about submarines. Far as I'm concerned, the argument on that subject is over in public. If you want to argue via some other format, I'm always up for it, but it's got nothing to do with anyone else here.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Just something to toss out there... not mentioned so far is disparity of targets. Inarguably the germans had a LOT more targets than the U.S. or other nations did. Personally I would think this would have a lot more influence on tonnage sunk than some minor difference in warfighting ability (whether based on technology or unit training).

Wodan

While German targets to allied subs were few and far between, the Italians offered a lot of targets for the allies (British in-particular), and the Japanese were an absolute treasure-trove of targets for the Americans.

I hope what I highlighted didn't mean you are downplaying one of the most decisive factors in the US Submariner record (it's possible I didn't get what you were getting-at right)... one cannot begin to measure the difference in ease of sinking an unescorted convoy, vs an opponent that has every measure of ASW imagineable put up against you... the differences in ASW technology, effort and defenses were immeasurably different between the Allies in the Atlantic and the Japanese in the Pacific... anyone who discounts the ASW effort between these two theaters of combat as insignificant or minor needs to learn a lot more on what submarine combat during WWII involved. I've read extensively on this particular subject over 30 years... the ASW effort (or lack there-of) of both the Allies and Japan are absolutely critical in the final numbers tallied for Germany and the US.

 

[Wodan]

Depends on what part of the war we're talking about. Early on, the germans targets were both numerous and ill-protected. Later on, I absolutely agree that allied ASW increased leaps and bounds and the tables were turned in that respect.

Bottom line IMO the dispositions of the engagement were a lot more telling than the hardware or training. (My assessment is based upon effectiveness as indicated by tonnage lost.)

The difference from an implementation standpoint is that dispositions of the enemy were to a large extent not able to be dictated or even affected. Hardware and training, OTOH, were indeed within their control.

Wodan

 

[c0d5579]

Depends on what part of the war we're talking about. Early on, the germans targets were both numerous and ill-protected. Later on, I absolutely agree that allied ASW increased leaps and bounds and the tables were turned in that respect.

Bottom line IMO the dispositions of the engagement were a lot more telling than the hardware or training. (My assessment is based upon effectiveness as indicated by tonnage lost.)

The difference from an implementation standpoint is that dispositions of the enemy were to a large extent not able to be dictated or even affected. Hardware and training, OTOH, were indeed within their control.

Wodan

QFT. There's also the problem of crew and equipment quality over the course of the war - early on, the Germans had a hands-down lead in all fields. The US, on the other hand, started out adequate and improved from there. One of the key factors in all fields of the war was personnel handling, and as I keep inadequately saying, Civ4 doesn't represent that at all. The way the US routinely rotated very successful members of all branches to Stateside training duty contrasts starkly to the German and Japanese model of use 'em 'til they break, then do a spot-weld and use 'em some more, both on men and equipment. I mean, how many American boats were ever sent to sea only to be sabotaged by their own crew to allow further training time? It extends beyond submarines as well - Michael Wittman wasn't the rule in German tankers, by 1944 he was the exception. See also Galland, or even Prien early in the war. The Germans might bring a man home for two weeks to fete him and ease his itchy neck; they did not then take him out of combat and pass on his lessons. Don't even get me started on the Japanese; finest light infantry in the world, thrown away in human wave attacks like it was 1917, and rifles that evolved from an improved Mauser-pattern to... muzzle-loading black powder smoothbores.

Here's another example - there's a clear difference in tube quality between the French 75 and anything on the German side as a dedicated AT gun in 1940. Why, then, do we not represent the French 75 as a UU? Because it abstracts out so far that it's not noticable. Same with the Spitfire versus the Zero or the Bf-109. There are strengths to each model; at the scale we see here, they're indistinguishable. My argument about submarines basically runs the same way. I realize what I'm saying is that unique units are a dangerous idea; the logical conclusion is that all of the UUs should go, both because there are no historical dictates that each culture must evolve a certain way, and because the game is supposed to be on an abstract level. I suppose what I'm actually getting to, logically, is that a meta-unique-units system needs to be implemented, and that's beyond the scope of Civ4. The Mongols versus the Romans again - if you're playing as the Mongols but you evolve near five sources of iron, but no horses, you should have the option of choosing your UU as a heavy classical-period infantry, or somesuch. It's beyond the scope of this mod, or even this game, but it's an idea that's been preying on me since I got embroiled in this debate.

Here's another constructive suggestion, this time more ancient-warfare related. The Byzantine cataphract was an innovation of Nikephoros Phokas, but "cataphracts" as head-to-hoof totally encased armored cavalry had been around since at least Crassus's Parthian expedition, on both Eastern and Western sides of the divide. What the Byzantines did have was a clear edge in siege and naval technology; we all know about "Greek fire." Why, then, shouldn't the Byzantine UU be a variation on one of the early naval units, say, specially promoted early in the game with Fire Control and equipped for catapult-strength shore bombardment? It's not like those units are strong or mobile enough at the time to justify attacking over and over again, and the Byzantines were much more of a naval power than most realize (if they think about "Byzantine" as meaning something other than back-stabbing) - no reason that, if they had survived into the 1700s and beyond, their naval forces wouldn't have kept the same transfer of elan that I was suggesting for the U-boat as a UU.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Okay c0d5579, I'm confused... I thought you hate UUs and will argue that at this scale, they are kinda pointless, then in the same post you suggest a Byzantine UU... but what if the Byzantines are landlocked... what makes Byzantine Greek Fire better then Greek Greek fire?

Just messing with you c0d5579.

Seriously though... doing more UUs isn't really on the frontburner for me. Talking about a German U-Boat UU was just a discussion topic, but not really something I've put any thought into.

*** Moving On ***

Something I have been considering though, is adding seaplanes (WWII-era) to the mod. I already have excellent models available, so really the only hold-up would be implementation and/or reason to do it at all.

Statistically, I could easily implement them as a unit that would perform more-or-less like a WWII Zeppelin... not able to fly intercepts or air patrols, a very weak bomber (really, really weak), but it's primary purpose would be scouting/recon. It would only be baseable in cities, cruisers, dreadnoughts and battleships (ie: catapult launched seaplanes). Its combat effect (directly) would be minimal, but it would be a very cheap plane to produce and would just sit on a cruiser or battleship till needed.

The need? Well, scouting and recon of course... give it a range of "7" like WWII light bombers... send one of these out from a battleship or cruiser instead actually sailing the ship that way... could also be used as a scout over enemy territory or newfound lands that a ship can't go.

This is all easily doable in XML... my only question is two-fold...
1) is it even remotely needed, or is it superfluous/detracting from the game?
2) hopefully, a dirt-cheap, nearly useless air unit would not be mass-produced/spammed by the AI computer, and you'd be harrassed by countless city-based seaplanes. How good is the AI at not producing nearly worthless units?

I think it would be kinda cool to have... I just don't want an incident of #2 to happen, and that's kinda hard for me to test (would have to play a whole game from scratch to even begin to hope to test it, and I take forever with my games).

 

[c0d5579]

Okay c0d5579, I'm confused... I thought you hate UUs and will argue that at this scale, they are kinda pointless, then in the same post you suggest a Byzantine UU... but what if the Byzantines are landlocked... what makes Byzantine Greek Fire better then Greek Greek fire?

Just messing with you c0d5579.

You kidding? Nothing I like better than rolling over Russia with more PzKpfw IV and SS units than you can shake a stick at (well, unless you count spending more money than I can really afford on little plastic men for games I don't even get a chance to play any more...). I've got no problem at all with scenario-specific UUs; it's in a generalized case that they become problematic. Solution? Turn off UUs on games other than the Earth map, I guess.

As for what makes Byzantine Greek fire better - well, it was "Greek" rather than "Latin;" at the time (roughly 1000 AD), Greek = Byzantine. The real reason for it is personal - I like the Byzantines, and they routinely get screwed in-game, and while the hippodrome makes sense, the cataphract... well... not so much.

Anyway, my problem with the UUs is that they give each civilization flavor, but they're a logical headache. I wind up chasing my tail over it - "I heart Panzer! But there wasn't a hugely destructive infantry war 20 years ago, so why do we have the best armor in the world?"

Seriously though... doing more UUs isn't really on the frontburner for me. Talking about a German U-Boat UU was just a discussion topic, but not really something I've put any thought into.

I've already mentioned how I'd do it, which seems straightforward enough to implement. As a UU, it's easier than the way that would really make sense to me, which as I mentioned a while back is a "military policy" civic category. Which, in turn, just begs the idea - do you have three separate categories of military civic, land, air, and sea, with sub-civics?

Case you can't tell, I have a habit of making everything more complicated than it needs to be.

Something I have been considering though, is adding seaplanes (WWII-era) to the mod. I already have excellent models available, so really the only hold-up would be implementation and/or reason to do it at all.

Statistically, I could easily implement them as a unit that would perform more-or-less like a WWII Zeppelin... not able to fly intercepts or air patrols, a very weak bomber (really, really weak), but it's primary purpose would be scouting/recon. It would only be baseable in cities, cruisers, dreadnoughts and battleships (ie: catapult launched seaplanes). Its combat effect (directly) would be minimal, but it would be a very cheap plane to produce and would just sit on a cruiser or battleship till needed.

Hmmm... real-world implementations, I'm back to the Japanese again - you can base a seaplane or two on a submarine. Perhaps make seaplane capacity a promotion, then grant that promotion automatically to all modern and past naval units? After all, the WW1 era dreadnoughts wouldn't have been fitted for them. That'd allow you your ridiculous seaplane I-boats and your non-airplane dreadnoughts.

The need? Well, scouting and recon of course... give it a range of "7" like WWII light bombers... send one of these out from a battleship or cruiser instead actually sailing the ship that way... could also be used as a scout over enemy territory or newfound lands that a ship can't go.

Dunno, I'd want to see range figures for cat-launched seaplanes; if they're short enough, it might just be described by the "Sentry" promotion without adding another resource-using unit. Planes like the Catalina or the various Dornier models are better described as light bombers that can see submarines (argh! another unit niche!), but then, they're also technically not seaplanes, but amphibians.

Though that reminds me - for some reason I cannot remember off the top of my head whether you can station planes in forts; if you can't, you should be able to. See Guadalcanal, Wake, Iwo Jima, Okinawa... though an argument could be made that those are just level 1 cities with an extensive late-game fortification improvement (Tunnel System? Dammit, making things complicated again...).

This is all easily doable in XML... my only question is two-fold...
1) is it even remotely needed, or is it superfluous/detracting from the game?

See my note on range versus "Sentry." If history justifies them as having a longer range than two squares on a huge Earth map, then they make sense.

2) hopefully, a dirt-cheap, nearly useless air unit would not be mass-produced/spammed by the AI computer, and you'd be harrassed by countless city-based seaplanes. How good is the AI at not producing nearly worthless units?

You're kidding - you mean there might be an opportunity for my carrier fighters to get experience??? Though the fact that you've given the computer an upper limit of planes that can be placed in any one plot does help the plane spam.

I think it would be kinda cool to have... I just don't want an incident of #2 to happen, and that's kinda hard for me to test (would have to play a whole game from scratch to even begin to hope to test it, and I take forever with my games).

Personally, I think it's a great idea, same as adding in the intermediate naval units (especially the Galleass, random as that sounds, but see my Byzantine comments for why - I crave a fleet o' dromonds to sweep those Latin rabble from My Sea). My reservations are similar to yours - AI abuse, testing time, and on gigantic maps on long-play games, it's another resource hog in a mod that already has a lot of balls in the air.