1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Barbarossa: The War in the East 1941-1945

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Completed Scenarios' started by Sarevok, Aug 15, 2004.

?

What do you think of this Scenario?

  1. Excellent

    67.8%
  2. Good

    23.0%
  3. Ok

    4.4%
  4. Bad

    4.7%
  1. Rocoteh

    Rocoteh Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2002
    Messages:
    7,618
    Metacomet,

    Thank you and
    welcome back!

    Most of the "crusaders" joined the Waffen SS,
    but not all as you have pointed out.
    Yes, maybe some sort of wonder could reflect this.

    Rocoteh
     
  2. Klyden

    Klyden Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,276
    In general (especially on the eastern front) tank destroyers are thought of as tracked vehicles that have a low profile and limited gun traverse as they don't usually have turrets. (The US was the big exception and they used open top turrets).

    Some examples would include the Hetzer, Jagpanther, Jagtiger for the Germans and SU-85 and SU-122 for the Soviet.

    Part of my reasoning for saying that they should not have the blitz ability is that they are more of a defensive weapon rather than the ultimate attack weapon.

    Assault guns are just that. They do attack, but are of the same general configuration as the units listed above. Early German assault guns (typlified by the StugIII with short barrel 75) were not very good anti-tank guns and were concentrated more on providing direct support to the infantry. Later German assault guns had good anti-tank performance, but the ammunition load was different between the two with units assigned to assault gun duties having a large number of anything but AT shells and those on Tank Destroyer duty having a large number of AT shells in relation to what else they may carry.
     
  3. Rocoteh

    Rocoteh Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2002
    Messages:
    7,618
    Germanys way to defeat can also be seen
    in Tank-destroyer production.

    If one look at total production of
    Tanks, Tank-destroyers and Assault-Guns,
    Tanks hold a 84% share in 1939-1940.
    This would drop to these stats:

    1942 69%
    1943 52%
    1944 46%
    1945 23%

    As the war turned against Germany more
    and more TD:s were needed to back up the
    hard-pressed Infantry Divisions
    Germanys Infantry-Divisions constituted the vast
    majority of the Wehrmacht during the whole war.

    During the peak production year 1944 for the
    Panther, 3 964 were produced.
    One can compare that with 1944 production-stats
    for the Jagd Panzer III : 4 846 produced.

    Rocoteh
     
  4. Rocoteh

    Rocoteh Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2002
    Messages:
    7,618
    Battle-created Leaders suggested:

    Balck
    Guderian
    Hoth
    Kesselring
    Kleist
    Kluge
    Manstein
    Model
    Rommel
    Rundstedt


    I am aware that some of the mentioned leaders
    never served on the east front.

    Rocoteh
     
  5. LBPB

    LBPB Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    643
    A human vs human test is needed here, because the Civ3 engine really sucks on large scale fight.

    The computer had at least 3 chances to make an huge counter attack who would have made several casualties if well executed. :rolleyes: But only too few (7 at max) russian tank managed to counter attack...
     
  6. Rocoteh

    Rocoteh Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2002
    Messages:
    7,618
    LBPB,

    Yes I agree that an human versus human
    playtest should have great value.

    Rocoteh
     
  7. Pfeffersack

    Pfeffersack Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,170
    Location:
    Germany
    Yes the range was greater, but as every tile in civ represents 10miles I think it would be still two much.


    About TD: I like the idea to make them bombarding untis instead of the ones with the highest offense value.This to solves also a (possible -don't know if there is something in the scenario which already prevents it) problem with the AI, which tends to build only one offensive unit - the one with the highest offense.

    About mines/transports for foot units: Adds also fun to the game, but the AI handling of this is usually bad.



    Some more:

    von Bock - commands the troops at the middle front until 1941 and the ones in the south until 1942
    Busch - commander of troops at the middle front ("Heeresgruppe Mitte")1943-1944
    Heinrici - commander of the 4.Army and 1.Tank Army
    Hoepner - 1941-1942 commander of the 4.Tank Army
    Küchler - commander of the northern troops("Heeresgruppe Nord") 1942-1944
    Leeb - commander of the northern troops until 1942
    List - commands the southern troops 1942
    Paulus - commander of the 6th army in Stalingrad
    Weichs - commander of the southern troops since 1942
    Wenck - he was the one who should support the defense of Berlin 1945

    Ok, most of them are not so famous (but all were commanders at the eastern front), but I think the list for this scenario could be a bit longer...

    EDIT: The ammunitions factory gives 2 happiness...seems to be a relict of the colloseum.
     
  8. sabo

    sabo My Ancestors were Vikings

    Joined:
    May 29, 2002
    Messages:
    4,104
    Location:
    Minneapolis, City of Lakes
    The Barbossa operations is the one I am most interested in the was, becuase basically whoever won in Barbarrosa would with the war. I can't wait to get home and DL it.

    Way to go guys!! thanks
     
  9. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
  10. Rocoteh

    Rocoteh Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2002
    Messages:
    7,618
    sabo,

    Thank you.
    I hope you will like the scenario.

    Rocoteh
     
  11. AKauhanen

    AKauhanen Civ3 graphics for Civ4

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    103
    What do you Klyden think of the range 0 support fire way to implement antitanks in the game ?
    What about the StugIIIs or other assault guns? Would the range 1 mix of artillery and tank be good ? Or just make them rushing normal tanks with lower armor and no blitz ability ? What are your views ?
    Assault guns should be able to take more air assault damage than the vulnerable mobile artillery, but not fire as effectively as it on long range.

    1) Paratroopers have A LOT of running training, they don't carry anything heavy, the basic paratrooper tactic is to quickly conquer the target bridge/city/airfield/harbor/oilfield after landing. Paratroopers should have a move of 2 not 1.

    2) Finland had only 2 fighter divisions. Later in the war Germany sended 2 more to aid us (effectively doubling Finlands fighter force). In the scenario Finland has 3 fighter divisions and 1 bomber division. One fighter division and the bomber division should be removed.

    3) Finland wasen't industrialized yet in the time of WW2. The small factories and coal plants should be removed from Finnish cities :( Or reduced atleast. A big part why Finland stopped the offensive was the fact that because of our low industrial base we coulden't make enough artillery, antitank emplacements, aircraft or tanks. We had to rely on drafting and small arms production. And without sufficient armor production taking on the Russians in the plains of Leningrad is hard. Ambushing Russian tanks in a forests is easy, but where the forest and swamps end the difficulty begins.

    4) Helsinki had a antiair emplacement. Other Finnish cities diden't. Or only low antiair defence.

    5) Finland had already started military training of it's population. Atleast some military compounds should be in Finland.


    6) Finlands army was a Veteran army from the last Winter War with moral high. One Elite division is possible, but not many because it would make the army created by the Winter Wars Great Military Leader "Carl Gustav Mannerheim"s army too good. If he is placed in the game as a starting unit Mannerheim should be in Helsinki when the war begins. The next Great Finnish Military Leader should be named "Adolf Ehnrooth" (the name isen't writen correctly, but close enough.) He will (possibly) be created during the war.
     
  12. -ladyshav0r-

    -ladyshav0r- Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3
    Location:
    Rietberg, NRW, Germany
    I've got an error :(
    ERROR READING FILE
    Missing entry in "text\PediaIcons.txt": ANIMNAME_PRTO_SID
     
  13. AKauhanen

    AKauhanen Civ3 graphics for Civ4

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    103
    ladyshav0r put the EAST folder in the same folder the scenario is and it will start working ;)
     
  14. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    Indeed, SID is the "Soviet Infantry Division" so its the way you installed it that is the problem, not the unit.
     
  15. -ladyshav0r-

    -ladyshav0r- Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3
    Location:
    Rietberg, NRW, Germany
    thank u, now it works. In my opinion, this is one of the best ww2 scenario i have ever seen in civ3. Great job :goodjob:
     
  16. laisak

    laisak Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2001
    Messages:
    134
    Finnish MGL's

    name, rank at the time, position, more...

    First 4 are from the Mikkeli "inside":
    - C.G.E Mannerheim (Marshal, Commander-in-Chief)
    - Aksel Airo (Major General, Quartermaster-General, Defacto Second in Command. Responsible for operational planning. "The Marshal leads the war, but I lead the battles".)
    - Axel Heinrichs (General, Commander of the Karelian Army. The only person other than Mannerheim himself who reveived the Mannerheim Cross, First Class.)
    - Vilho Nenonen (General, General of the Artillery)
    - Hjalmar Siilasvuo (Major General. Commander of the III Corps, famous from the Battle of Suomussalmi in the Winter War)
    - Paavo Talvela (Major General, Commanded the III Corps in the Karelian Isthmus)
    - Karl Oesch (Lieutenant General, Commanded the Aunus Group)
    - Ruben Lagus (Colonel, Commander of the Jaeger Brigade and later the Armoured Division)
    - Adolf Ehrnrooth (Major, Chief of Staff 2nd Division. After the war a General and became the figurehead of the vetaran community)
    - Lauri Törni (Captain, Waffen-SS, later assigned to Detachment Törni an elite infantry unit)

    This is more of a "Heros of the Continuation War"-list.
    I have a book that has the detailed list of commanders of Corps etc if you'd prefer that one.
     
  17. bigmeat

    bigmeat The weapon of choice

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    786
    Location:
    San Diego
    i would like to see a recoteh vc. sarevok
     
  18. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    :lol: that would be interesting
     
  19. AKauhanen

    AKauhanen Civ3 graphics for Civ4

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    103
    So it was "Ehrnrooth". I got it close enough ! :goodjob:
    Laisak at what order should the Great Finnish Military Leaders come ? And I think only the battle created are important not the onces who got their position by their family/status. (By this I don't mean Ehrnrooth even as he got his innitial position by his family's influence. )

    I don't know is the game unbalance toward Germans.. Im playing on demigod and the Russians are making really fierce resistance :)

    I have to say that trucks and halftracks work great in the game engine!

    I have noticed that placing mines on roads is wise if a truck&halftrack [low hitpoints & attack of 1] hits it.

    Armor hitting mines destroyes the mines everytime.
    Mines should be used in masses. My mines have a ranged damage of 100 so they damage a unaware unit trying to move into the minefield square everytime, but the mine is destroyed always after. [mine defence1 & hitpoint1]

    Trucks have only one hitpoint so they should be (but aren't) destroyed instantly hitting a mine[mines have lethal land bombardment], halftracks have 2 hitpoints so they survive the innitial mine hit and then there is a 50% chance of them surviving the mine. [Halftrack attack1, mine defence 1]

    The big problem with mines (In my mind) is that they are too easy experience creators for tanks. Let's say a tank hits a minefield of 3 mines. The tank takes one damage [rangedattack100, range0], then the tank destroyes the mine [mine defence 1], then the tank drives deliverably into the minefield again, hits a mine and loses one hit point and destroyes the mine, then attacks the minefield and with only one mine in the minefield there isen't even the one point of damage from the "supportfire" and the last mine is destroyed. The tank has 3 chances of gaining a level and 0% chance of dying... :sad:

    The real use of mines is stacking them around a fortified city and waiting for the enemy to lauch a attack. Everytime the enemy attacks they first hit a minefield, get one damage and only after that gets to fight my fortified infantry. If the infantry gets killed the enemy can easily clear the minefield.

    The real problem of minefields is how to implement the disabling of them... :( The Pioneer batallion just seems to fail in every attempt.. :confused:
    The Pioneer ("Engineer"?) batallion itself works. They spot minefields, build roads and bridges for armor and other motorized units. I even enabled them clearing forests/jungles, building barricades, radar towers, outposts and forts.

    Mines are a great idea, but if lethal bombardment fails everytime when pioneers try to destroy a minefield there really isen't no point in minefields...
    Also a 50% chance of a truck surviving a hit by a mine is too much. The truck should be destroyed instantly. Maybe there is a button I have forgotten to push and because of it lethal land bombardment isen't on, because now no damage is coming when I bombard hitpoint 1 targets... :(

    1) New suggestion for a unit: Horses :goodjob:
    All of the guns are immobile and must be towed by a truck, halftrack or horses. Infantry can also ride the horses and use them for little faster movement before deploying for combat. Horses could have movement 2, hitpoints -2, transport capacity 1, attack&defence 0, and cost 25-30(?). A cost effective way to transport placement guns for the poorer less industrial nations. Horses can be captured. The poorer nations used horses more than people think. Horses are important :goodjob:
     
  20. No idea

    No idea Gumby

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Messages:
    85
    Location:
    Coromandel,New Zealand
    AKauhanen: I think that putting in things like horses and mines would make the game too complicated IMHO.
    But their good ideas.
     

Share This Page