"Beta" Massive WW2 scenario
- Thread starter Meateater
- Start date
Hamah said:Yeah, only one more week to get this...
Hamah,
Yes, November 15 is still target date.
Right now I am working with The Royal Air Force.
It will be 10 different graphics for RAF!
This is possible due to the incredible work done by Wyrmshadow.
Rocoteh
Hamah said:Thanks Wyrmshadow, thanks...
If you need help, I´m here.
Hamah,
BTW, I deployed the navy of Argentina today.
September 1939 it was rather impressing:
2 Battleships
2 Heavy Cruisers
1 Light Cruiser
4 Coastal Defence Ships
16 Destroyers
3 Submarines
Rocoteh
10 different graphics for the RAF, wow! You are very good in teasing us with all the information about the new scenario. 
I hope that interest will be high, so you will feel encouraged to work further with that scenario, as you have mentioned a few posts before.
CellKu
I hope that interest will be high, so you will feel encouraged to work further with that scenario, as you have mentioned a few posts before.CellKu
Rocoteh said:
Excellent, that should be good to develop a south american campaign of domination or give a hand in defeating the Germans. But realism tells a different story and those same ships were the ones that fought the Falklands War and some of them were sunk.
Also, Argentina was pro Nazi at that time and, if the tides of war had been different, we would have become another ****y fascist nation. Although we had fascists, those weren´t not even close to Hitler.And to play Argentina in a war game is to have a country with low production and development. I wanted to play as it once in Hearts of Iron but realizad that was sad and wouldn´t get me anywhere.
Anyway, I´ll try the Argentinian navy in your mod.
CellKu said:10 different graphics for the RAF, wow! You are very good in teasing us with all the information about the new scenario.
CellKu
CellKu,
In fact it was a very positive surprise for me that
there were so many RAF-graphics available.
I estimate that some 80% of all Industrial-period
and Modern-period graphics produced the last year
have been done by Wyrmshadow and ripptide.
One can only hope they will proceed with unit-creation.
Rocoteh
Hamah said:Excellent, that should be good to develop a south american campaign of domination or give a hand in defeating the Germans. But realism tells a different story and those same ships were the ones that fought the Falklands War and some of them were sunk.
And to play Argentina in a war game is to have a country with low production and development. I wanted to play as it once in Hearts of Iron but realizad that was sad and wouldn´t get me anywhere.
Anyway, I´ll try the Argentinian navy in your mod.
Hamah,
Shall I interprete your post in the way that you think its
pointless to include Brazil or Argentina (or both) as playable
Civs?
Rocoteh
Rocoteh said:
No no, the more civs there are, the more I like the scenario; keep them, it´s great. I was only suggesting that those civs shouldn´t have good production. It would be like hungary and Romania in the Barbarossa mod. But, they will be great for allies on both sides. There was a brazilian air squadron during WWII; maybe you could consider that if you haven´t.
Hamah said:
Hamah,
1. It gives more space for what-if.
2. Should US, Britain and Soviet defeat the Axis,
it will be possible with a war between the Western allies
and Soviet.
I will create some "house victory rules" in addition
to the standard rules.
Rocoteh
I support the longer period. It would be interesting to see how things evolve. Too bad that there is no chance to include events - like one of the remaining civs, Soviets and US/UK, start turning against the other. Well, perhaps in Civ4...Rocoteh said:
CellKu
Oh, and I am interested in seeing the "house victory rules!
CellKu said:I support the longer period. It would be interesting to see how things evolve. Too bad that there is no chance to include events - like one of the remaining civs, Soviets and US/UK, start turning against the other. Well, perhaps in Civ4...
CellKu
Oh, and I am interested in seeing the "house victory rules!
CellKu,
Yes the "house victory rules" will be like:
If Western allies and Soviet occupy Berlin, Rome and Tokyo
this is a "house rule" victory.
Here in this situation the player (for example US) can cease playing
or proceed with declaring war on Soviet.
Rocoteh
Rocoteh said:
That sounds great. What is the starting year? Because you must consider things like Soviet Union in war with Finland and so on. I tell you this because you made that mistake in the Barbarossa mod. By 1941, the year Germany invaded the Soviet Union, Finland and the Soviet Union had already signed a peace treaty (1940) and Finland left some territory to the Soviet Union. But you put them at war. So I think, if the starting year is 1939, you should put the Soviet Union and Finland already at war. In another WWII mod I play, Soviet Union signed a mutual protection pact with Finland...
Other things are not controlable, whether a nation goes to war with another and so on. Even less if you start in 1933.
It's a good way to circumvent the shortcomings of Civ3.Hamah said:That sounds great. What is the starting year? Because you must consider things like Soviet Union in war with Finland and so on. I tell you this because you made that mistake in the Barbarossa mod. By 1941, the year Germany invaded the Soviet Union, Finland and the Soviet Union had already signed a peace treaty (1940) and Finland left some territory to the Soviet Union. But you put them at war. So I think, if the starting year is 1939, you should put the Soviet Union and Finland already at war. In another WWII mod I play, Soviet Union signed a mutual protection pact with Finland...
Other things are not controlable, whether a nation goes to war with another and so on. Even less if you start in 1933.
Hamah,
I am sorry to say that you are wrong.
June 25 1941 (3 days after Barbarossa) Soviet bombed Helsinki
and several other cities thus declaring a de facto war against Finland.
Thus the scenario Barbarossa is correct.
WW2 Global start September 1 1939. Soviet attacked Finland
November 1939. Thus Soviet and Finland should not be at war
when the scenario starts.
Rocoteh
Rocoteh said:
I don´t want to debate about this, but I have in my hands right now a book about WWII, written by Chistopher Chant, Shelford Bidwell, Anthony Preston and Jenny Shaw. One of the first battles you can read has the title "The Winter War" and you read about Finland and the Soviet Union war. I translate some text from the book:
"The non-agression pact between Russia and finland was signed in 1934. On October 14th 1939, Stalin stated several territorial demands to Finland in exchange of a considerable border adjust in Carelia. [...]
On November 30th, and without a formal declaration of war, it began by air, sea and land the soviet blitzkrieg. Helsinki suffered a terrible air bombing, with lots of dead."
Finishing this battle description:
"On March 12th 1940 the russian-finnish treaty was signed, that gave the Soviet Union 41.400 Km2. The new frontier left Finland naked against any agresor and the russians owning most of Carelia. Their losses had been huge: 200.000 dead and 400.000 wounded."
Either I invented a lot, which would make me a genious, or the book is wrong. I believe none of both.
EDIT: I have some more, from the Hispanic Enciclopedia.
Quote: "On November 30th, the soviet forces invaded Finland. The strong finnish resistance finally got the peace from Moscow, on March 12th 1940, by which the nordic country left Carelia to his giant neighbour, but mantained its independence".
Hamah,
Soviet attacked Finland November 1939. Peace was signed March 1940.
By bombing several Finnish cities June 25 1941 a new state of
war again existed.
I reacted since you said it was wrong that Finland is at war
with Soviet when the Barbarossa scenario starts(it differs 3 days).
Then you stated that WW2 Global (with start date September 1939)
should have Soviet and Finland at war when the scenario starts,
despite the fact that Soviet attacked in November.
I must admit that discussions like this are rather pointless,
however if someone says "you are wrong!" when it concerns
facts that everyone can check I must react.
Everyone can make a memory-mistake.
That is OK.
Rocoteh
Soviet attacked Finland November 1939. Peace was signed March 1940.
By bombing several Finnish cities June 25 1941 a new state of
war again existed.
I reacted since you said it was wrong that Finland is at war
with Soviet when the Barbarossa scenario starts(it differs 3 days).
Then you stated that WW2 Global (with start date September 1939)
should have Soviet and Finland at war when the scenario starts,
despite the fact that Soviet attacked in November.
I must admit that discussions like this are rather pointless,
however if someone says "you are wrong!" when it concerns
facts that everyone can check I must react.
Everyone can make a memory-mistake.
That is OK.
Rocoteh
Similar threads
