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

[Wolfshanze]

I'm having a blast with this mod, currently using the bundled 124x68 34-Civ Earth Map/Scenario going on 1560 AD as China and pretty much dominating.

Glad you're having fun with the mod... yes, the Earth Map is a lot of fun too... I enjoyed porting it over to the Wolfshanze Mod.

What maps/scenarios do you guys use? I was hoping to find some cool scenarios starting in different eras, with historical locations defined, but I can't seem to find some good ones.

There's no-other specific scenarios designed for the Wolfshanze Mod, but most scenarios based on default Civ4 (or BtS) wouldn't be very hard to port-over. The new flags would need to be ported-over to a pre-existing scenario, and maybe a leader tweak here or there, but that's about it. All easy to do in NOTEPAD.

Paasky... sounds cool what you're working on... not really sure what to say, but good luck!

 

[Kilroywashere]

About the crashes, I experienced a few when i tried to play a complete game, But when I started Advanced Starting right into the Industrial Age they went away. Just thought you should know.


{ALso since this was kind of ignored, I just want to say again, that Machine Guns should have the interception promo.}

 

[Kilroywashere]

I know that the AI (even in BTS) is kind of on the dumb side, but I make up for it by playing with almost double (or even Triple) the number of AI then a normal game, usually on a Terra or New world map so that it's close to a One-City Challenge until Astromony.

It makes for some interesting late-game naval wars, as most of your empire is on a different continent then your capital.

 

[Wolfshanze]

{ALso since this was kind of ignored, I just want to say again, that Machine Guns should have the interception promo.}

It probably went ignored because I'm never going to do that. The MG unit in the game is not an anti-air unit, and you only want it because airships bug you... the answer is develop flight, not give MGs AA ability... there's not ONE documented case in the history of warfare where a ground-based MG took-down an enemy airship.

Feel free to give MGs all the AA ability you want on your end, but that won't be an official change on this end.

Also, what's the version you have been playing-on regarding crashes... there WAS a crash bug on v2.5 through v2.61... it has been resolved since v2.62.

P.S.
I'm going to change Early Fighters (Biplanes) in the next update... I'm going to drop their bomb city/tile ability and replace it with a 50% combat bonus against airships.

 

[Kilroywashere]

I'm not saying that Machine guns had a long and glorious history of gunning down airships. But they were the first kind of (successful) ground based Anti-air weaponry (the first defense was was using any gun and pointing it at a plane; the Japanese Arisaka rifle was fitted with a anti-aircraft sight for this purpose, obviously this didn't work as the rifle itself was bolt action, therefore incapable of putting enough bullets into an enemy plane to take it down and the plane would change angles with the rifleman so fast that aiming was impossible). In WW1 and the pacific theatre of WW2 the most common anti-aircraft weapon was a high caliber machine gun pointed up.
Besides it wasn't just Airships they'd take down, especially since airships had such a short combat career. After all, they weren't even in service for all of WW1. It didn't take long to discover that floating a giant flammible balloon over an enemy city was not a good idea. (I know that most Airships were filled with helium but i'm talking about the few cases when they were filled with helium's more combustilbe cousin, hydrogen)

Besides considering the lack of an actually Flak Unit in Civ 4, the machine gun would be the closest thing to simulate this.

Or an Artillery could take the Flak guns place, considering Warships would use their main battery to take down fighters with sheer concussive force (think IJN Yamoto vs. Carrier Task Force Taffy 3 in the Philipines) and the German 88mm Flak Gun, which Feldmarshal Rommel doubled as an Anti-tank weapon during the north Africa Campaign of WW2 and served as one of the main (semi-)stationary artillery used by the Third Reich.

Also since Civ 4 is also a "what-if" game in some respects, wouldn't it be fair for some of the underdeveloped civs to be able to defend from the air, considering how much more important the Air War is in your mod.

The Airship is much more important to fighting naval units and because of its ineffectiveness versus land units it was restricted to scouting and sub hunting. Wouldn't this better be represented if Airships could be more easily shot down?

 

[Wodan]

there's not ONE documented case in the history of warfare where a ground-based MG took-down an enemy airship.

Oh yeah?

Only in America.

In all seriousness... a quick google search shows at least one: A Japanese Zero, piloted by Warrant Officer Osamu Kudo, was shot down on the beach at the end of the raid by a Dutch pilot, F/Lt Gus "Wild Bill" Winckel, using a 7.9 mm machine gun he had taken from his LT9-18 Lockheed Lodestar. He stood behind a sawn-off tree and fired the machine gun from the hip. He sustained severe burns to his left forearm, which he used to support the barrel of the machine gun.

Here's a half dozen confirmed, during the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Wodan

 

[Wolfshanze]

I guess nobody is reading what I said...

there's not ONE documented case in the history of warfare where a ground-based MG took-down an enemy airship.
(That's 'Zeppelin' for those of you speaking German).

The main reason people whine about MGs needing AA is because of AIRSHIPS... my mod makes airships available only ONE TECH away from early fighters... early fighters are what you use to eliminate airships... beyond that, the best AA unit is always going to be your own fighters... later-on you can get SAM units, but the best AA unit will always be fighters... I have a vision, and that vision is folks fighting it out in the air... if you're too lazy or too cheap to develop your own airforce and just want to sit back behind ground based MGs for defense, that's not my problem... build fighters, or modify it on your own end! I'm not nerfing the value of air units for people who don't want to be bothered with them. People want 50% or 60% WWII air-intercept destroyers, and MGs to take down aircraft... this is nuts folks... if you don't want to be bothered from the skies, control the air with your own fighters... ask the Germans how well their air defense worked against the Allies if they had no air force and only small caliber MGs to defend (oh, and Destroyers too). It doesn't work folks... that's not reality.... if you want a fantasy, do it on your own end.

In ANY case, I will NOT be giving MG units AA capacity... that's that. Anyone who thinks they need it, can easily change this on their own end.

 

[Kilroywashere]

there's not ONE documented case in the history of warfare where a ground-based MG took-down an enemy airship.

Actually, there is one documented case of a <i>Submarine</i> based machine gun taking down an airship. American Airship K-47 was shot down by a German submarine U-134, the only allied Airship lost in WW2. Besides that i could find no other references to any airship shot down by surface based defenses. So you're right, almost.

Every machine gun used in WW2 also doubled as an anti-aircraft weapon, the Flakvierling was actually four MG-34s mounted together. The MG-42, the Vickers, the Browning .30 cal and .50 cal, even the BAR were used (effectively) as Anti-aircraft weapons. These, in fact, are the exact same weapons equiped as light AA on ships.

 

[Kilroywashere]

Fine, I'll just change it on my end.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Actually, there is one documented case of a <i>Submarine</i> based machine gun taking down an airship. American Airship K-47 was shot down by a German submarine U-134, the only allied Airship lost in WW2. Besides that i could find no other references to any airship shot down by surface based defenses. So you're right, almost.

Actually I'm right 100%...

The incident you speak of is between U-134 and K-74 (not K-47).

If for any reason you are confusing an 88mm Deck Gun with a small-arms MG, you need to rush to the optometrist right away. The K-74 had it's engine nailed and subsequently caught-on fire from the 88mm fire of the U-134 according to multiple records... it was the 88mm that did the damage... and as an additional point, the MG on U-134 is 20mm... much larger then a standard field MG.

 

[Kilroywashere]

I couldn't find an actual description of the battle, so I checked the armaments of both, and found that MOST of the VII Class u-boats did not have heavy anti-air capabilties, but had machine guns.

 

[Wodan]

Umm, okay, here:
http://www.avalanchepress.com/Zeppelins.php. It doesn't say machine gunners but standard infantry. Presumably a machine gunner would substitute for several dozen bolt-action armed infantry.

Anyway the reason airships weren't normally a target of ground troops is because the airship specifically desired to fly above the ceiling of enemy single-engine fighters. We're talking 15,000 feet. Well above the range of a bullet.

Interesting, here's a 12lb gun from the HMS Agamemnon that took down a zeppelin.

Wodan

 

[Kilroywashere]

The MG unit in the game is not an anti-air unit, and you only want it because airships bug you...

That's not true, it's the enemies lack of defense that bugs me. They'll build a whole ton of MG's but won't touch an air-force until they get AIR SUPERIORITY. it's true that airships bombing my non-coastal cities unmolested bugs me a little but it's really a lack of opposition.

Also, while I'm on the topic of airships, Are they supposed to not require oil or did I mess something up when I edited the XML file?

 

[Wolfshanze]

Also, while I'm on the topic of airships, Are they supposed to not require oil or did I mess something up when I edited the XML file?

They don't by default (Civ4 rules)... good catch... it was annoying enough you could get them with Physics alone (I changed it to Physics + Combustion), but you're absolutely right... they should require oil too! I'll change that in the next update.

For those that don't want to wait, go to the Airship XML and put this line under "Bonus Type" instead of the "NONE" currently there:
<BonusType>BONUS_OIL</BonusType>

 

[Wodan]

Were there really no natural-gas-powered dirigibles? Strange.

Wodan

 

[Wolfshanze]

Were there really no natural-gas-powered dirigibles? Strange.

I don't call myself an expert, but I'm pretty sure the combustiable engines on dirigibles were fueled by fossil fuels... and I'm darn positive that steam and coal powered Zeppelins weren't terrorizing anyone either... so Oil would seem the logical requirement (and combustion unlocks it anyways).

 

[arstal]

I was thinking- should there be anti-tank/anti-air guns on the game. I"m thinking they'd be siege weapons str 12, can only defend, can intercept aircraft (10%), +100% vs armor.

Thinking along the lines of those guns used in El Alamein

 

[Tlalynet]

Hey, if you want to emphisise air combat more SAM infantry could do with a nerf. Most AI's spam them hard as soon as they get them (anyone else expiriance this) so I wind up losing my fighters and bombers to them, or at least geting in combat with them and thus geting no XP. They get what, 20% vs EVERY incoming plane, so even one of them causes me a headache and usually costs a bomber a round or more, artilery quickly becomes more cost-effective because even when you suicide it it will at least hit. I wouldnt mind 10% for SAM and 20% (its base 30 isnt it?) for Mechs, heck, I wouldnt mind tryng 5% for SAM and 15% for Mechs, geting my airforce taken down in approx 5 turns when only fighing land units really irks me. If a jet takes it down I dont mind as much.

Yeah, sorry everyone else, I'm really going against everyone elses suggestions of more ground to air fire...

 

[Xenomorph]

I was thinking- should there be anti-tank/anti-air guns on the game. I"m thinking they'd be siege weapons str 12, can only defend, can intercept aircraft (10%), +100% vs armor.

Thinking along the lines of those guns used in El Alamein

You mean the Flak 88's?

They get what, 20% vs EVERY incoming plane, so even one of them causes me a headache and usually costs a bomber a round or more, artilery quickly becomes more cost-effective because even when you suicide it it will at least hit. I wouldnt mind 10% for SAM and 20% (its base 30 isnt it?) for Mechs, heck, I wouldnt mind tryng 5% for SAM and 15% for Mechs,

You mean Mechanized Infantry? What about Mobile SAM's?

 

[Wolfshanze]

Hey, if you want to emphisise air combat more SAM infantry could do with a nerf. Most AI's spam them hard as soon as they get them (anyone else expiriance this) so I wind up losing my fighters and bombers to them, or at least geting in combat with them and thus geting no XP. They get what, 20% vs EVERY incoming plane, so even one of them causes me a headache and usually costs a bomber a round or more, artilery quickly becomes more cost-effective because even when you suicide it it will at least hit. I wouldnt mind 10% for SAM and 20% (its base 30 isnt it?) for Mechs, heck, I wouldnt mind tryng 5% for SAM and 15% for Mechs, geting my airforce taken down in approx 5 turns when only fighing land units really irks me. If a jet takes it down I dont mind as much.

Yeah, sorry everyone else, I'm really going against everyone elses suggestions of more ground to air fire...

I hear you Tlalynet... my thoughts exactly... there's already too much AA fire coming from ground units, and the INT rates are ridiculous. It's like Civ4 is trying to nerf airpower ridicuosly so, and a lot of folks around here are just piling-it-on... I sometimes wonder if anybody even wants to play with air units... I sometimes think everyone avoids airpower and gets annoyed when it's used against them and thinks the only counter should be AA-ground units, not their own fighters flying intercept missions.

I know what airpower can and has done... Civ4 nerfs airpower as-is... the AI and ground troops don't need anymore help, especially from 7.92 small-arms rounds from light MGs. Airpower should be feared and the best counter to enemy airpower is your own air force flying patrols and intercepting the enemy... the answer is not ground-based fire from light MGs and destroyers.