July 1914 : On the Eve of the Great War

10,000 was an extreme number, used as a point. More typically, it was probably closer to half that number on such a large front. I do remember reading somewhere though that in one battle, there were 10,000 guns used by the Germans.

I'm not trying to disprove anyone's figures, just trying to state that the real numbers probably is inbetween Marla/Gogf's current EXTREME amount of artillery, and Lynx's much smaller figures (though closer to Lynx).
 
Generally, Lynx knows what he is talking about when it comes to military warfare, strategy, and History in general. He is less "publicized", but his knowledge is not far away from Rocoteh in terms of accuracy of his information. You would do well to listen to what he says as well.

I shall depart, I have a scenario to run and 3 scenario's to make.
 
Originally posted by Sarevok
Generally, Lynx knows what he is talking about when it comes to military warfare, strategy, and History in general. He is less "publicized", but his knowledge is not far away from Rocoteh in terms of accuracy of his information. You would do well to listen to what he says as well.

I shall depart, I have a scenario to run and 3 scenario's to make.
Click to expand...
Well, I tend to agree on that point. My thing is more geography and general History than warfare. Actually, I've done the map first because I wanted to see if I was able to represent the Europe of Empires of the beginning of the 20th century. It's only because those big things had to fight together that it became a world war 1 scenario. This being said, I'm still a Civ3 player and I'm sure doing a special defensive unit will never work because as much the AI than humans are mostly keeping their defensive units into cities.

I would be really glad if there was a way to coordinates more different units, but it's too complicate for Civ3 (not for Call To Power actually). Civ3 only manages "one unit vs one unit" fight. The only coordination you can use is bombard units. So you'll never be able to make an "accurate" WW1 scenario. the only thing you can do is to make a compromise between accuracy and playability. :(
 
its possible, VERY possible to make it accurate. There are a few small tweaks in the editor I have found that would allow me to do trench warfare accurately and effectively.

You agree im right yet you do nothing about your scenario to improve it off the accurate data? I call that laziness.

It is VERY possible to do everything correctly to WW1, it dosent really take skill or wierd tricks at all. Its your choice really as doing such a thing does not retract fun from the scenario. I can name a scenario that does it very well, but the creator of that map is too tied up in making his own interpretations rather than helping you figure it out.

As I said before, its a question of if you want your scenario accurate so you please the "highly knowledgeble" despite alot of work, or keep it inaccurate alienating the "highly Knowledgeble" and being lazy.
 
Sarevok, I'm not far behind Rocoteh either with regard to my knowledge of History, Strategy and Military Warfare. Though, I must admit, Lynx is definitely up there too. So, I will respect what he says. And, as I said, I used an extreme case to point out that Marla/Gogf aren't necessarily as far off as was stated.


I think this comment was probably directed toward me?

Quote: It is VERY possible to do everything correctly to WW1, it dosent really take skill or wierd tricks at all. Its your choice really as doing such a thing does not retract fun from the scenario. I can name a scenario that does it very well, but the creator of that map is too tied up in making his own interpretations rather than helping you figure it out.


While I agree that you have to compromise, you can still make efforts to make that compromise have both historical realism and playability.

For ACW, I reduced the defensive modifiers of Cities/Metropolises to 10%/20%. This immediately erases the extreme defense of cities. I also reduced most terrain modifiers by half, as they are excessive. In fact, most of the other modifiers were reduced by about half. Then, I scaled up the defense a little bit on Infantry, to more accurately portray the true attack vs. defense. The idea is not necessarily 6 vs. 10, but where 2 units of comparable strength should be able to win against 1 unit of similar strength, if fighting on say grassland or plains (but not always win). Also, city defense improvements also were cut down by about a factor of 1/2. Basically, its the units which are the main determination of the victor, instead of terrain or cities.

ACW also scales up the HP on units (3/4/6/8), which makes Veteran and Elite units harder to kill. This though was done to emphasize the larger units that were later found in the American Civil War in general, and to better set up the initial Order of Battle.

I'm not sure how much this information will help, but its how I was able to more accurately simulate realism for ACW.
 
Originally posted by Procifica
Sarevok, I'm not far behind Rocoteh either with regard to my knowledge of History, Strategy and Military Warfare. Though, I must admit, Lynx is definitely up there too. So, I will respect what he says. And, as I said, I used an extreme case to point out that Marla/Gogf aren't necessarily as far off as was stated.
Click to expand...

You are for the civil war, but you said earlier not for WW1. Gogf is a scenario designer who's goal is to assist with the 'technical' ideas of a scenario, not the historical creation though he will need to know what type of weapons were used and in what way. That area can be hit hard with inaccuracy, but the real inaccuracy goes to marla, who's interpretation of the scenario as a total european war involving every country and having poison gas at the start is extreme inaccuracies to name a few.

Originally posted by Procifica
While I agree that you have to compromise, you can still make efforts to make that compromise have both historical realism and playability.
Click to expand...

Like I had said, One scenario creator has done this very effectively to create an excellent scenario. Too bad it dosent get the attention it deserves as people are too busy here debating over things in this thread long settled before the other scenario was released months before this one was.

Originally posted by Procifica
For ACW, I reduced the defensive modifiers of Cities/Metropolises to 10%/20%. This immediately erases the extreme defense of cities. I also reduced most terrain modifiers by half, as they are excessive. In fact, most of the other modifiers were reduced by about half. Then, I scaled up the defense a little bit on Infantry, to more accurately portray the true attack vs. defense. The idea is not necessarily 6 vs. 10, but where 2 units of comparable strength should be able to win against 1 unit of similar strength, if fighting on say grassland or plains (but not always win). Also, city defense improvements also were cut down by about a factor of 1/2. Basically, its the units which are the main determination of the victor, instead of terrain or cities.

ACW also scales up the HP on units (3/4/6/8), which makes Veteran and Elite units harder to kill. This though was done to emphasize the larger units that were later found in the American Civil War in general, and to better set up the initial Order of Battle.

I'm not sure how much this information will help, but its how I was able to more accurately simulate realism for ACW.
Click to expand...

This is just a note of curiosity to you Procifica: although you were the "creator" of ACW in all area's, I would have to say the bulk of the work came from Rocoteh especially when you disappeared for three months on reasons that you are starting to post up in ACW again.

In my opinion Rocoteh did most of the work, but his work and effort was "re-recognized" so that you had been the one who had done all of this work and for that Rocoteh isnt part of ACW anymore.

This may seem excessively harsh and "flaming", but I bring it up out of curiosity as these are my observances.
 
You are for the civil war, but you said earlier not for WW1. Gogf is a scenario designer who's goal is to assist with the 'technical' ideas of a scenario, not the historical creation though he will need to know what type of weapons were used and in what way. That area can be hit hard with inaccuracy, but the real inaccuracy goes to marla, who's interpretation of the scenario as a total european war involving every country and having poison gas at the start is extreme inaccuracies to name a few.
Click to expand...
Lynx... Why are you so bully on Marla ? That scenario is a huge work. Almost every units are actually edited. I didn't see many maps that has been that accurate. Countries borders are totally respected. It's not that common. Countries strength are quite accurate also.

About neutral countries, do you actually know how to read ? Did people teach you that ? If all countries are in alliances, it's because it's the best way to see neutral countries not being attacked !!! Are you enough grown up to get that ? When you compare the size of Denmark and the size of Germany, it's totally natural to see german AI attacking Denmark !!! You can do as many twicks as you want, it won't change that statement !

After all, I'm starting to think you don't care at all about accuracy !! You would like better to see Spain in war against France and Denmark invaded by Germany because "they weren't part of any alliance". You're so childish !

You don't have to watch very long that scenario to realize it needed a lot of time to be created. Instead of directly insulting scenario creators, you should at least recognize it needed time to make it so. Have you already seen other WW1 scenarios ? This one is the best so far !

No... not a nice word, only insults. You should have trouble in your life to not be able to communicate normally. Do you see a therapist ? And I'm not rude against you, I'm totally frank actually. You have big troubles man.

Moreover, I consider quite funny the reason why you consider that scenario to be good to trash : "There's no gas shells in 1914", "Machine Gunners are defensive units.... that's a biiig deeeeaaal ! boooooh !"... I really hate people who are despising everyone just like you do.
 
Originally posted by Andrewz
Lynx... Why are you so bully on Marla ? That scenario is a huge work. Almost every units are actually edited. I didn't see many maps that has been that accurate. Countries borders are totally respected. It's not that common. Countries strength are quite accurate also.

About neutral countries, do you actually know how to read ? Did people teach you that ? If all countries are in alliances, it's because it's the best way to see neutral countries not being attacked !!! Are you enough grown up to get that ? When you compare the size of Denmark and the size of Germany, it's totally natural to see german AI attacking Denmark !!! You can do as many twicks as you want, it won't change that statement !

After all, I'm starting to think you don't care at all about accuracy !! You would like better to see Spain in war against France and Denmark invaded by Germany because "they weren't part of any alliance". You're so childish !

You don't have to watch very long that scenario to realize it needed a lot of time to be created. Instead of directly insulting scenario creators, you should at least recognize it needed time to make it so. Have you already seen other WW1 scenarios ? This one is the best so far !

No... not a nice word, only insults. You should have trouble in your life to not be able to communicate normally. Do you see a therapist ? And I'm not rude against you, I'm totally frank actually. You have big troubles man.

Moreover, I consider quite funny the reason why you consider that scenario to be good to trash : "There's no gas shells in 1914", "Machine Gunners are defensive units.... that's a biiig deeeeaaal ! boooooh !"... I really hate people who are despising everyone just like you do.
Click to expand...

I could have made this scenario in 3 hours (not the modpack stuff, but the map and nations given the size, absolutely). I dont have any troubles actually, you are just heavily overreacting and it is you who needs to go and deal with your "ideals". You dont know how to tweak anything in the editor to set it up! THERE IS A SCENARIO THAT HAS DONE ALL OF THE DIPLOMACY AND FIGHTING OF WW1 ABSOLUTELY CORRECT WITHOUT FLAW. Go ask the Experts on History who have played this, they dont play this because of inaccuracy and wish to correct this stain to WW1 maps. The only reason people are here is to debate about units. YOU DO THAT IN THE PREVIEW THREAD, or you shouldnt even have debates about it at all as most scenarios have it all said and done before release. This is a gathering of the unsure which is the only reason this thread has 300 posts in 1 month as all you do is debate between Accuracy and convienience, and its mostly inaccurate.

Now, if you think im totally insane and just rambling on about inaccuracy of this scenario, you will know precisely what I mean in 7 days. You will know the true anger the historians feel over this inaccuracy, and it will be the death of this thread to almost certainty!
 
Originally posted by Lynx
Now, if you think im totally insane and just rambling on about inaccuracy of this scenario, you will know precisely what I mean in 7 days. You will know the true anger the historians feel over this inaccuracy, and it will be the death of this thread to almost certainty!
Click to expand...

:lol:

Well, that was funny, but how about putting things to perspective? It's just a scenario and you don't have to play it.
 
Originally posted by Lynx


I could have made this scenario in 3 hours (not the modpack stuff, but the map and nations given the size, absolutely). I dont have any troubles actually, you are just heavily overreacting and it is you who needs to go and deal with your "ideals". You dont know how to tweak anything in the editor to set it up! THERE IS A SCENARIO THAT HAS DONE ALL OF THE DIPLOMACY AND FIGHTING OF WW1 ABSOLUTELY CORRECT WITHOUT FLAW. Go ask the Experts on History who have played this, they dont play this because of inaccuracy and wish to correct this stain to WW1 maps. The only reason people are here is to debate about units. YOU DO THAT IN THE PREVIEW THREAD, or you shouldnt even have debates about it at all as most scenarios have it all said and done before release. This is a gathering of the unsure which is the only reason this thread has 300 posts in 1 month as all you do is debate between Accuracy and convienience, and its mostly inaccurate.

Now, if you think im totally insane and just rambling on about inaccuracy of this scenario, you will know precisely what I mean in 7 days. You will know the true anger the historians feel over this inaccuracy, and it will be the death of this thread to almost certainty!
Click to expand...

Moderator Action: CEASE FIRE!!! Everyone, put down your flame-throwers and stop flaming and bickering before someone gets banned. This is only a scenario, let the scenario designer make the scenario the way they want to. This is a warning.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
According to Keegan, The First World War, 1998, the Germans had a grand total of 14,000 artillery pieces on the Western Front in early '18, and the Allies a bit over 18,000. Couldn't during a quick search find figures for any individual offensive, but given those totals 10k sounds suspiciously high.

Lynx: If you find this scen so poor, why do you simply not cease posting in this thread? And shut up about who did what in ACW!

Moderator Action: Did you see my warning above? I warned everyone to stop bickering and flaming eachother over this sceanario.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Happy New Year to EVERYONE !!!

[party][party][party][party]

I hope this year will be the best to all of you and don't drink too much tonight :D !! I'll make a little summary about what's questionned in this scenario and how can we smartly change rules a bit later. :) For now people ! HAPPY NEW YEAR !!
 
great job! it's really fun, but i have a few suggestions:

Italy has control over 2 squares in Antolia(because they own Rhodes). I whould recomend turning these squares into coasts and adding an extra Plains square to Rhodes on it's South-Western side, that way, Italy doesn't have a foothold in Antolia. Also, you accidentally put Switzerland in the Triple Alliance(Central Powers) when in fact they were nuetral. I would also reccomend having Italy be in no alliance since I believe they were originally in the Central Powers but never declared war on the Allies(Entente) and in fact attacked Austria-Hungary in 1915. Sweden, the Netherlands and Spain were also nuetral, and I believe Denmark was also, but I'm not sure if they were later attacked by Germany. The only countries in the Central Powers were Austria-Hungary, Germany, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria.
 
BTW, if you go into the "Terrain" section of the editor, and find Coasts, you can set Coasts to allow cities, thereby putting Venice on water. It would, however, be impossible to build more cities on the water, unless you allowed a boat to build cities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lionic
[SCENARIO] The Cold War (TCW) Unofficial update by Lionic
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
Delta_Strife
Delta_Strife
Meteor Man
OVERLORD (1941 Start) - Second World War In Europe, North Africa, and the Soviet Union
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
8K
Meteor Man
Meteor Man
civ2units
War of Spanish Succession / Great Northern War scenario idea
Replies
12
Views
753
techumseh
techumseh
Nathiri
[C3C] When Aahnacet Calls - Strategic Defense
Replies
1
Views
622
Chalito
Chalito
techumseh
Old project getting started.
2
Replies
21
Views
921
techumseh
techumseh
Top Bottom