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

[nv_civ]

Thanks for your responses. Yes, I do run vista x64 - I could not find anything relevant in the v3.17 thread, but I suspect you are right.

I am triying now to bypass this by manually resetting it back to maximum settings. So far it seems to work fine, but I am still in 2000BC.. Hopefully it will not start crashing in the middle of the way..Anyway, we see..

 

[Wolfshanze]

And regarding pirates as Q-ship implementation (now that I know what you mean by auxiliary cruisers, I'm inclined to agree)

It's a minor point on the name issue... while a "Q-Ship" and an "Auxiliary Cruiser" are more-or-less on paper a similar ship or design, the primary role of those vessels is different.

"Q-Ships" tended to be Allied-specific, and were built and used primarily in the convoy escort/protection role... used to lure-in enemy subs and/or auxiliary cruisers, then open-up on the unsuspecting attacker (making the attacker the prey... primary purpose, eliminating the seas of commerce raiders).

"Auxiliary Cruisers" tended to be Central Power and/or Axis-specific, and were built primarily as commerce raiders themselves... using guise to get-by warships and guise to close-in on unsuspecting merchant vessels, then open-up on the unsuspecting merchantman (primary purpose, sinking enemy transports and commerce).

The ships themselves are both similar (merchants that are heavily armed and usually hidden), but the roles were quite opposite of one-another... and in the terms of use in Civ4, such a vessel would more then likely be used in the "Auxiliary Cruiser" commerce-raiding role!

It's a minor matter of semantics!

 

[Wolfshanze]

Totally unrelated, but as I was in a bit of a rush to get a v3.17-compliant mod out the door, I didn't take as much time as I wanted with some of the new units. I've been getting my team involved, and I have a "new and improved" USS South Carolina dreadnought that will be in the next release... several little improvements which (IMHO) make it look much better.

here's a sneak peek

 

[c0d5579]

It's a minor point on the name issue... while a "Q-Ship" and an "Auxiliary Cruiser" are more-or-less on paper a similar ship or design, the primary role of those vessels is different.

"Q-Ships" tended to be Allied-specific, and were built and used primarily in the convoy escort/protection role... used to lure-in enemy subs and/or auxiliary cruisers, then open-up on the unsuspecting attacker (making the attacker the prey... primary purpose, eliminating the seas of commerce raiders).

"Auxiliary Cruisers" tended to be Central Power and/or Axis-specific, and were built primarily as commerce raiders themselves... using guise to get-by warships and guise to close-in on unsuspecting merchant vessels, then open-up on the unsuspecting merchantman (primary purpose, sinking enemy transports and commerce).

The ships themselves are both similar (merchants that are heavily armed and usually hidden), but the roles were quite opposite of one-another... and in the terms of use in Civ4, such a vessel would more then likely be used in the "Auxiliary Cruiser" commerce-raiding role!

It's a minor matter of semantics!

Implementation in-game would be the same, unfortunately, because mechanics for a transport ship designed to shoot at unsuspecting destroyers are the same as a transport ship designed to shoot at unsuspecting transport ships. I see the difference, but as far as I can see, the difference is whether the player is dumb enough to risk a glorified transport in straight combat with a warship, and the answer is clearly "Yes," if the player in question is the computer. The other question is whether the unit type was (or could reasonably have been) influential enough to include. I'm inclined to throw in pretty much anything that actually existed, but that's just me, and leads to things like those giant German cargo submarines (submarine properties without any attack bonus, half the capacity of a transport), the airplane-carrying Japanese submarines, the Ekranoplan... you get the idea. Gets resource-intensive fast, and some of them only have real value as "WTH?" units.

Now, back on subject, if you're considering implementing disguised gunships of any kind, have you considered escort carriers? They'd fill the same niche in-game they filled IRL - carriers for those who don't have the time to build proper carriers, have the same move and strength as a transport, carry two instead of four fighter-sized units.

 

[Wodan]

Actually, merchant ships (trade routes) are implemented in the game virtually (they do not have concrete game pieces). Probably the best way to approximate this would be to give the Q-ship or Aux cruiser a stealth invisibility equivalent to the sub mechanic.

 

[carnivore1]

Hi !
I have been trying to download your mod for sometime but i am always getting errors from Fileplanet !

is there another one to donwload it ?

thanx

 

[c0d5579]

Actually, merchant ships (trade routes) are implemented in the game virtually (they do not have concrete game pieces). Probably the best way to approximate this would be to give the Q-ship or Aux cruiser a stealth invisibility equivalent to the sub mechanic.

Problem with the invisibility as per submarines is... why would battleships and aircraft carriers find a merchant ship to be totally invisible? I agree about trade routes, but transports do exist, and if you've got commerce-raiders implemented off roughly analogous technologies to submarines, doing exactly the same thing... what's the point?

 

[Wodan]

Problem with the invisibility as per submarines is... why would battleships and aircraft carriers find a merchant ship to be totally invisible? I agree about trade routes, but transports do exist, and if you've got commerce-raiders implemented off roughly analogous technologies to submarines, doing exactly the same thing... what's the point?

They're not invisible per se. They just appear to be a normal trading ship, probably flying the colors of a neutral nation. So why should the battleship take special notice of it?

Like I said, it's assumed that all kinds of merchant ships are running all over the map. That's what trade routes are.

 

[c0d5579]

You still haven't answered the question what's the point of having them behave like submarines if they are developed at the same time as submarines? There are other issues - submarines, for instance, would clearly see them, and if they're "neutral" shipping, under the total submarine war doctrine that's been the norm since the Germans tried it out in WW1, it's not likely the transport would survive. This is an obscure way of saying submarines can't see the sub-invisible ships either, and they logically can see and would target a modified freighter.

Of course, the logical extension of your argument is that commerce-raiding is folded into the "blockade" mechanic, which also covers parking a line of U-boats off the US's Atlantic coast, or the coast of England. It doesn't cover mid-Atlantic intercepts so well, but that's the price of a relatively abstracted game.

 

[Wodan]

You still haven't answered the question what's the point of having them behave like submarines if they are developed at the same time as submarines?

Because not everybody builds submarines. And, even if they do build them, the subs aren't everywhere. So, you'd be invisible to 99% of the enemy's navy, if not 100%.

There are other issues - submarines, for instance, would clearly see them, and if they're "neutral" shipping, under the total submarine war doctrine that's been the norm since the Germans tried it out in WW1, it's not likely the transport would survive. This is an obscure way of saying submarines can't see the sub-invisible ships either, and they logically can see and would target a modified freighter.

So it seems like the proposed gameplay would work. Because the subs would indeed be able to see them.

It's the battleship that can't.

Of course, the logical extension of your argument is that commerce-raiding is folded into the "blockade" mechanic, which also covers parking a line of U-boats off the US's Atlantic coast, or the coast of England. It doesn't cover mid-Atlantic intercepts so well, but that's the price of a relatively abstracted game.

Yep.

 

[Wolfshanze]

You guys are thinking too hard!

 

[Healz]

I must admit the AI I had an adverse event in my first game as Russia's Stalin and had to defend myself against Shaka and Bismarck. I didn't win a victory, as that went to one of the AI players but I was about third on the overall power statistics and more advanced than anyone else for quite a while... I mainly aim for knowledge, get in front and to the modern era and then attack the underdeveloped AIs. Unfortunately this time they were keeping more of an eye on my progress and were ready for me...

 

[mice]

Hi Wolfshanze. Just a fan boy post to say I'm enjoying the mod a lot these days.
Playing as Zara I like a lot the new color of the cuture border, and the units look very good. Thanks !!

 

[ottomanturk1]

When i try to load the latest version of the mod, the game stops working. What should I do? Ignore this post! I forgot to read the note to 313 users. DUH!!!

 

[c0d5579]

Because not everybody builds submarines. And, even if they do build them, the subs aren't everywhere. So, you'd be invisible to 99% of the enemy's navy, if not 100%.

Yes, but what sense does it make that a destroyer can go "Hey, look at that otherwise innocuous transport," and the battleship, carrier, and armored cruiser just sail right on past?

As for not everyone building submarines - that's true, but I don't see that it would affect the addition of a weaker submarine-equivalent to the game.

So it seems like the proposed gameplay would work. Because the subs would indeed be able to see them.

No; nuclear-era subs would detect them fine, but when it's relevant, in the equivalent to the 1900-1950 timeframe, submarine units wouldn't see them.

 

[IagoAlberto]

Hi Wolf, love the way the South Carolina is shaping up and the fact you added a bunch more dreads to your new release. Just a quick question, where did you manage to pull 3 new dreadnoughts out of?!? Not that I'm complaining, quite the opposite in fact.

@Everyone else, I think you are all overestimating the importance of auxiliary cruisers/q-ships. Most navies that fielded them did so from a position of weakness like the germans in the world wars or the confederacy during the civil wars. Although their statistics are often impressive they were really just an irritant to major navies. Which were forced to deploy more cruisers to far away places to deal with them. The way wolf would present them would work fine. Although even then they may be more powerful in civ terms than they deserve to be.

Cheers

 

[Wolfshanze]

Hi Wolf, love the way the South Carolina is shaping up and the fact you added a bunch more dreads to your new release. Just a quick question, where did you manage to pull 3 new dreadnoughts out of?!? Not that I'm complaining, quite the opposite in fact.

I thought I added more then three out of thin air?!?!

@Everyone else, I think you are all overestimating the importance of auxiliary cruisers/q-ships. Most navies that fielded them did so from a position of weakness like the germans in the world wars or the confederacy during the civil wars. Although their statistics are often impressive they were really just an irritant to major navies. Which were forced to deploy more cruisers to far away places to deal with them. The way wolf would present them would work fine. Although even then they may be more powerful in civ terms than they deserve to be.

The way I described it, an Auxiliary Cruiser in Civ4 (by my stats) would only be dangerous to unescorted transports or damaged warships (and even a fully-healthy normal transport can sink a damaged warship in Civ4). That's if I implement it at all.

 

[Orion Shadow]

I cannot get this mod to load. I have had all the previous versions work, and I have had other mods work with 3.17. I keep getting an "Initialize Renderer failed. Check DirectX Installation, Latest Graphics Drivers and Graphics Settings Parameters: width = 1024 height = 768 flags =0xc hwnd = 0xf00e2 adaptrid = 0 deviceid = 1"

I have the current directx (Jun08) My graphics driver is a out of date but that I cant upgrade because I play on a laptop. System specs are P4 3.0g proc, Ati 9800 256Mb video, 2g of ram.

If any one has a suggestion I would really appreciate it.

 

[c0d5579]

@Everyone else, I think you are all overestimating the importance of auxiliary cruisers/q-ships. Most navies that fielded them did so from a position of weakness like the germans in the world wars or the confederacy during the civil wars. Although their statistics are often impressive they were really just an irritant to major navies. Which were forced to deploy more cruisers to far away places to deal with them. The way wolf would present them would work fine. Although even then they may be more powerful in civ terms than they deserve to be.

Cheers

We're not arguing how important they've ever been - we're arguing implementation. By that argument, though, you might as well say that submarines in the world wars were only an irritant to the major navies, because they were only deployed from a position of weakness (see Germany, US PACFLT), didn't engage warships as a rule, and diverted important military assets to protecting convoys (see North Atlantic)... or that the Vikings as a civilization should be left out, because they weren't terribly good at facing organized opposition (see Stamford Bridge, Clontarf), just at coastal raiding, albeit on a large scale (see Paris)... or that privateers shouldn't be included either, because they also were deployed from a position of weakness (see Drake, Morgan, Jean Bart) and didn't pose a serious threat to an organized military effort (see what happened in the 1700s when the British bothered to put together an organized anti-piracy effort). Heck, as long as the mod includes the early flier, I'm not sure we can argue anything on the basis of actual military importance - and no, that doesn't mean ditch the early flier. I like the idea that whoever gets there first can have a squadron whose lineage traces back to Kitty Hawk or its in-game equivalent.

Summary: A unit's real-world military effectiveness has nothing to do with its presence in the game. As long as I'm at it, though, the real-world model does suggest that privateers should be upgradable to "real" naval vessels. It happened with Drake and Jean Bart; Jean Bart especially would qualify for upgrade to a frigate.

 

[IagoAlberto]

@Wolf, I think all the world's admiralties would have found your dreadnought conjuring abilities very useful Seriously though, where have the Cavour, Moltke, South Carolina and Ise been hiding out all this time?

@c0d5579 I think you missed my main point. Which was, commerce raiders never had success or impact like 16th/17th century pirates and privateers or 20th century submarines. Unlike the submarine campaigns in both world wars or earlier anti-piracy actions, a few auxiliary cruisers on the loose did not require massive allocations of military resources. Send a few cruisers, thats about it.

I also think that integrating something into the game has to have at least a modicum of a historical justification. Most units are abstractions to simulate different periods of warfare. I found many of the suggestions about making them mini submarines in game ridiculous. I was atempting to get the point across, apparently poorly, that making them very weak disguised nationality raiders is the only way to go.