Anyone Making a World War II Scenario?

[Dark Sheer]

Alright folks, wish me luck with Flicster and Animation Shop

I will try to work on the zero fighter for the next few days. Since this is my first attempt I will try to mess with the files here and there to see what result will I get

I have manage to find a mock-up for zero at the Tamiya modelling site (see image attached). The question is what was the color of the plane? I know some Japanese fighters are green while some are white if I remember correctly, whats the color of zero?? Any input will be great.

 

[Toni1]

Blackadder : yes, iceland was occupied by british troops after germany overun denmark and norway in 1940 and U.S. took over the defence in 1941 till the end of the war I think.

1940 is probably the best starting date or at least start with polland occupied (and split between russia and germany), baltic states occupied and winter war over.

I too think that two separate scenarios would be better than whole world war in one scenario, there can be only 16 countries in scenario anyway at one time.

Also most of the countries should have own contry specifig units (is there limit to number of unit/improvement/wonder types in game/scenario?), but many normal unit types should be available for all (basic infantry, light armour, basic fighter, basic bomber etc.).

War exaustion should be eliminated and replaced by something else (german unability to build its best infantry etc units in later part of the war and so on)

There are plenty of problems tought :
Editor lacks most things needed for scenario creation
(no event creation, placement of units, cities etc.)

Airwar cant be simulated effectively with the new air war system (no doc fights between fighters, no fighter escords, no sinking of ships with bombers. ground and sea units unability to damage aircrafts, etc. [is it true there's no airfields either?!])

note that I dont have the game yet and will not waste my money on it until bugs are fixed and game includes scenario editor with ALL PROMISSED and needed features/functions.

 

[Dark Sheer]

Oops, miss the image

 

[toodrunk2wlk]

the navy Zeros were white and the ground attack air force zeros were dark olive.

 

[Mig1]

The Japanese Army Air Force never had Zekes. They flew Oscars. Which were no where neer as good as the Zero (Zeke).

It might have had something to do with land-based naval fighter squadrons vs. carrier based naval fighter squadrons(?). And why white disapeared towards the end of the war (no more carriers).

 

[sgrig]

My opinion is that at least 3 scenarios have to be made:

1. Eastern front - starting in June 1941, optimized for the Soviets, played on an Eastern Europe/Western USSR map (like Red Front)
2. General WWII European Theatre, starting in Spring 1940, optimized for Germany, played on a Europe/Middle East/Northern Africa map
3. Pacific Theatre - optimized for USA, played on an Asia-Pacific/USA map, starting in Dec 1941

It is very hard to make scenarios which are optimized for all players, so the best bet is to have separate scenarios for each of the major players, set in the theatre in which the given country was involved the most.

For a scenario to be interesting there needs to be some continuous action going on - that is why WWII scenarios in Civ2 designed to be played by Britain tend to be boring - you just sit on the island for 5 years, engaging in a couple of fully event-driven campaigns which do not decide anything.

The three scenario possibilities for scenarios outlined above would ensure constant action the outcome of which is fully determined by the human player.

 

[Toasty]

The problem with limited theatres is that no represcussions are echoed into the next theatre (i.e. Japan launches devastating attack on U.S.A. would have an effect on north Africa and Europe). I always hate complicated wars where you have c1 at war with c3 and c5, which c4 is at war with c1 and c3, and c2 is at war with c5 and c4. Yech!

 

[Snowballer]

Hmm.. If the scripting is anything like Civ2 (I haven't fiddled with it yet), then it would be possible to lay down down some time periods, where you say "Now it's December 1941, Japan declare war on these nations and vice versa". Of course, you need to calculate which round it will be and so on.

I still remember the evening I spent 5 hours typing up an events.txt for one of the popular WW2 Mods for Civ2, meaning that I was almost able to make the entire WW2 unfold on its own, all owning to my events.txt telling each nation what to do in each turn

 

[topguy]

I played in CivII WWII scenario as Britain and it was interesting, and there should be a scenario in which the game will be interesting when you choose diffrent countries, not just for axis but for every country(neutrals also). So dont make diffrent scenarios for diffrent countries make it the same way as in civII.

 

[sgrig]

In order to make a scenario challenging, the AI has to be 'helped' - so for example in Red Front, the Germans were made much stronger than they really were, so that the Soviet (human player) side has a very big challenge.

Similarly, in scenarios where the human player is supposed to be Axis, the allies are made much more powerful than they were, again to make the game more challenging for the human players.

This was done because the AI does not 'know' that it supposed to fight a fierce war, and so if not for extensive help through events and otherwise, the scenario would suck.

So with Civ2 AI it was hard to make a scenario optimised for all nations, since the AI player had to be helped.

Since we don't have any scenario-building tools in Civ3, it is hard to tell how the Civ3 AI will behave in a scenario. From standard games I can say that the AI is more willing to fight large wars with large forces than in Civ2.

So we just have to wait until scenario tools for Civ3 are shipped...

 

[Freemason]

Other than the obvious already stated here... some of the lesser nations in a WW2 scenario should be: Switzerland, Poland, Spain (involved in its own civil war), Egypt (just because of the Suez canal), Austrailia (for the Pacific Theather) and the Phillipines, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Argentina (which harbors the Nazi's who want to get away yet remains "neutral"..
just my 2 centavos

 

[Beelzibub]

some terrain improvement ideas:

minefields-
only visable to the player who built them.
when enemy enters mined square they get affected as if they had been bombarded by a cannon.
probably hard to do on a map covering several countries/continents. Only viable on small scale maps.

airfields-
bring back the good old airfields. otherwise its not possible for nations like the US to use other countries, such as the UK, as stations for air units.

railroads-
is it possible to make railroads less effective rather than scrapping them altogether?
maybe they only give units a 6fold move increase rather than infinite.

Also...
i reckon a single theatre would be ideal, but is far too hard to implement without each turn taking an eternity. Therefore i think two theatres is the best option.

 

[Risbinroch]

How big maps are actually possible? If it is a WHOLE WORLD scenario it has to be huge.... I prefer a european and a pacific and I would want them to be huge too, as huge as possible.

But this is supposed to be a war scenario, what about making settlers realy expensive, that way perhaps it's not that reasonable to just burn cities to the ground, if the AI understand that though.

If at all possible, it should be impossible to burn cities with size 3 and above to the ground, it is a terrible act of war to kill so many civilians.

If someone is doing a whole world scenario, some countries should belong to others, like only just one AXIS force + japan, Australia, South Africa, Canada etc. should just be Britain. Then start the game late so that some countries are allready fallen into the Axis hands.

 

[KloePoek]

the germans (and the russian to a lesser extent) burned down enough cities...

 

[dannyevilcat]

For a WW2 scenario, why have settlers at all? Workers are perfect. It's just too bad custom Combat Engineer units would fail to be used correctly by the A.I.

 

[Toni1]

Originally posted by KloePoek
the germans (and the russian to a lesser extent) burned down enough cities...

true but they did not kill the population so in game terms that would probably be described by selling all improvements.

If there wont be any settlers then no city should be destroyable as there's no way to rebuild em..

 

[Risbinroch]

Perhaps the settlers should just be realy expensive? Agree with the post above me, "scorched earth" tactic was not about killing millions of civilians as you do in the game. This is perhaps the feuture I dislike most in Civ III, the constant burning down when AI captures a city

 

[Anielewicz]

You also got to remember some of the population decline is when the citizens flee away from the city itself from invaders.

 

[dannyevilcat]

true but they did not kill the population so in game terms that would probably be described by selling all improvements.

I hope you were refering to just the Russians. Many towns did vanish as did 20 million people. Hitler often claimed that he would raze Leningrad to the ground, along with Moscow (IIRC).

The other point I want to make is why would you even want Settlers in a WW2 scenarion? Any city you make will be terribly unproductive and bare. And to make them extra expensive on top of that? Again, I don't think there's any need for them.

And to Dark Sheer, good luck with the Zero. THAT might just look frickin' nice!

 

[KloePoek]

Originally posted by Toni1


true but they did not kill the population so in game terms that would probably be described by selling all improvements.

If there wont be any settlers then no city should be destroyable as there's no way to rebuild em..

hmmm... naah, not really... they just burned down a LOT of cities and villages in russia they conquered, esp deep in the mainland, because they were of no value for them