Gogf
Indescribable
Yikes. I'll have the version with the AEF depots done on Monday, and I'll see it I can upload it...
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
July 1914 : On the Eve of the Great War
- Thread starter Marla_Singer
- Start date
salut a vous joueurs de civilization, et salut a toi marla.
bravo pour ton mod qui a l air remarquable, en tout cas la presentation des unités et du scénario m a impressioné. Il faudra juste que je pense a acheter conquest pour pouvoir y jouer un jour : )
j'ai peut etre une solution pour venise, qui flotte sur les eaux.
l seul moyen de permettre a des troupes d entrer dans une ville maritime, c'est de mettre un bateaux transport de troupe dedans.
il faudrait donc créer une unité spéciale pour venise, qui serait fortifiée par défaut et ne pourrait etre activée, qui aurait les capacités d un large transport de troupes, et un modèle adapté ( style un réseaux de gondoles )
je ne connais pas l editeur de civ3, je c pas si ces conditions sont réalisables... a toi de voir ce que ca donnerai
le défaut principal est de savoir si les unités crées tomberaient a l'eau ou auraient pied sur le bateau . . .
ps : j ai decouvert ce forum et celui de la grenouille ce soir, et j'ai bien apprécié vos messages. surtout les disputes pour connaitre la démographie d'apres guerre de la rhénanie ; ) ce sont ces details qui font le plaisir du jeu
bravo pour ton mod qui a l air remarquable, en tout cas la presentation des unités et du scénario m a impressioné. Il faudra juste que je pense a acheter conquest pour pouvoir y jouer un jour : )
j'ai peut etre une solution pour venise, qui flotte sur les eaux.
l seul moyen de permettre a des troupes d entrer dans une ville maritime, c'est de mettre un bateaux transport de troupe dedans.
il faudrait donc créer une unité spéciale pour venise, qui serait fortifiée par défaut et ne pourrait etre activée, qui aurait les capacités d un large transport de troupes, et un modèle adapté ( style un réseaux de gondoles )
je ne connais pas l editeur de civ3, je c pas si ces conditions sont réalisables... a toi de voir ce que ca donnerai
le défaut principal est de savoir si les unités crées tomberaient a l'eau ou auraient pied sur le bateau . . .
ps : j ai decouvert ce forum et celui de la grenouille ce soir, et j'ai bien apprécié vos messages. surtout les disputes pour connaitre la démographie d'apres guerre de la rhénanie ; ) ce sont ces details qui font le plaisir du jeu
smart traduction of precedent post ( for gogf specially )
idea : create special unite for venice
act like a transport ship, fortified as default, designed
will solve entrances matters
but dont know if unit created will survive, must be test on civ editor
thanks and great work - each detail count
idea : create special unite for venice
act like a transport ship, fortified as default, designed
will solve entrances matters
but dont know if unit created will survive, must be test on civ editor
thanks and great work - each detail count
Gogf
Indescribable
Remercie l'obéron, car je sais seulement le français limité. Merci beaucoup ! Bienvenue à CFC ! J'ai utilisé un traducteur pour ceci 
.
.This scenario looks fantastic, and from your screenshot the map of Europe looks very accurate.
I haven't even bought CIV 3 yet, but I def. am in next few days. I have read on the official FAQ that CIV 3 takes into account nationalism, and I wondered if this is something which you have incorporated into your scenario - e.g. French Citizens in Strasbourg, Romanian citizens in parts of Austria- Hungary for example.
Can't wait to buy the game, and Conquests and download your module!
I haven't even bought CIV 3 yet, but I def. am in next few days. I have read on the official FAQ that CIV 3 takes into account nationalism, and I wondered if this is something which you have incorporated into your scenario - e.g. French Citizens in Strasbourg, Romanian citizens in parts of Austria- Hungary for example.
Can't wait to buy the game, and Conquests and download your module!
Gogf
Indescribable
obéron : J'avais l'habitude le translater de Dictionary.com pour mettre ceci dans le Français, parce que je ne suis pas à l'aise, et il peut y avoir une certaine issue automatisée de traduction de traducteur. Si vous voudriez être un du quelque (si non seulement) peuple pour examiner un nouveau dispositif qui sera dans la prochaine version, veuillez m'envoyer un message privé. Pour faire vont ainsi l'"utilisateur CP," et cliquent "les messages privés." Que cliquent l'"nouveau message" et m'écrivent votre message. Soyez sûr de compléter "" et "les domaines.
I apoligize if the above sounds sketchy, I used an (imperfect) online translator.
@Welsh888: We can't wait to get yout feedback. Also, Welcome to CFC.
I apoligize if the above sounds sketchy, I used an (imperfect) online translator.
@Welsh888: We can't wait to get yout feedback
. Also, Welcome to CFC.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Rommel8 : It's really easy .
.- Download the file on your computer.
- Open the Zip file. It should contain one .biq file (called July1914) and one folder (called juillet1914)
- Paste both folder and .biq file in the ...Infogrames\Civilization III\Conquests\Scenarios folder.
- Run Civilization 3 Conquests.
- Click on "Civ content".
- You should see the scenario in the window, it's called : "July 1914".[/list=1]It's over !
Obéron : Well thanx for everything. Venice is actually an important city in the scenario cause it's really close to the Austro-Italian battlefront. That's why I think the city shouldn't be really harder to take over as any other. That's why I think maybe I'll forget about it 'till Infantry couldn't invade it from the land. Moreover, It could easily bug the game (what happens if Venice produces a WW1 Infantry and that there's no boat in the city ?). Thanx for everything obéron. You could send me private message in french if you're not comfortable with english.
Gogf
Indescribable
Marla, could you maybe give a more sensible version of what I [tried to] say in French? Thanks.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
I would like to ! But I don't understand it actually ! Okay... here's an attempt.
FRANCAIS :
J'utilise Dictionary.com pour traduire ma pensée en français parce que je ne suis pas très à l'aise dans cette langue. Toutefois, le traducteur n'est pas fiable et donc ce message peut paraître incohérent à la lecture. Si tu souhaites être une des personnes qui testera le nouveau dispositif (?) présent dans la prochaine version, alors envoie-moi un message privée. Pour cela, clique sur "User CP", puis "New Private Messages". Je suis désolé si mon texte paraît fragmentaire mais c'est parce que j'ai utilisé un traducteur automatique en ligne.
ENGLISH :
I use Dictionary.com to translate my thought in French because I'm not very comfortable in that language. However, the translator isn't reliable so my message could sound incoherent once read. If you would like to be one of the tester of the new device (?) that will be implemented in next version, then send me a private message. To do so, click on "User CP" and then on "New Private Messages". I'm sorry if my text sounds sketchy but that's because I use an on-line automatic translator.
Gogf : what do you mean by the new device ? Are you talking about the AEF depot ?
Gogf
Indescribable
I see a lot of what I said got babbled, but yeah, pretty much.
Yes, I do. I think I said improvement, and it mistranslated it, as it does that fairly often. Once tell AEF Depot has been tested, and works, I'll upload the new version (I'm close to done putting in the AEF Depot). Thanks for translating/correcting it.
Yes, I do. I think I said improvement, and it mistranslated it, as it does that fairly often. Once tell AEF Depot has been tested, and works, I'll upload the new version (I'm close to done putting in the AEF Depot). Thanks for translating/correcting it
.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Sorry to answer you so late Welsh ! I haven't seen your message beforeOriginally posted by welsh888
This scenario looks fantastic, and from your screenshot the map of Europe looks very accurate.
I haven't even bought CIV 3 yet, but I def. am in next few days. I have read on the official FAQ that CIV 3 takes into account nationalism, and I wondered if this is something which you have incorporated into your scenario - e.g. French Citizens in Strasbourg, Romanian citizens in parts of Austria- Hungary for example.
Can't wait to buy the game, and Conquests and download your module!
! Well... actually, I wanted to put french citizens in Strasbourg, poles in Poland, Romanians in Transylvannia, Italians in Trieste and Trento, etc... Unfortunately, there's no way to do such in the editor. According to most of people in here, there's no way at all to do it (even with user created programs). 
That's why it's not the case... but I find that sad since it changes a lot the thing. It would have given a lot more realism to Austria-Hungary for example that would have been destabilized by regional independantists as it was indeed the case in reality.
Wow, It's been 2 days I've post the new version with the Tech tree and I didn't have any feedback about it already ! No one has something to say about it ? Being glad ? Being disappointed ? (Sorry to insist about that silly tech tree but I've spent a long time on it...)
[color=600f0f]Just a reminder, particularly to gogf and obéron: This is an English-language site. Please make all posts in English, or provide a translation with your post.
(I know this was actually done, after a fashion. This is just a reminder. )[/color]
(I know this was actually done, after a fashion. This is just a reminder.
)[/color]
I have not played the new tech tree, but look forward to it. I know it was a lot of work, and its a great improvement. Thanks.
Are there plans to change the leader-heads to flags or to the correct faces? That too, will be a lot of work.
Are there plans to change the leader-heads to flags or to the correct faces? That too, will be a lot of work.
Wow.. took a bit to read all 20 pages, but worth it.
I realize I am very new to this forum and while I consider myself a veteran Civ player (and good wargamer in general), I have never had the time to work on scenarios or mess with them very much. I also consider myself a good history buff and I have worked with playtesting other game systems (pretty much board games) and I also was part of a team that published a gaming magazine for several years that included design your own units, scenarios and commentary. (Tech Factory if anyone recognizes the name for primarily Battle Tech).
Having gotten all that out of the way, hats off to the designers and workers of this scenario on what is obviously a lot of work.
After messing around with the game a bit, I would like to make some observations/suggestions.
First, there has been a lot said on naval units. Please let me toss in my two cents worth.
I feel there is a place in the game for the pre-dreads as they did play a role in WW1, both in European waters and also overseas. (Someone mention the Battle of Coronel and Cradock did indeed have a pre-dread assigned to his squadron, the Canopus, but it was not at the fight). In game, their values put them too close to dreadnaughts and a move speed of faster than dreadnaughts is not correct. Destroyers seem to be overpowered as well. Finally, the requirement of oil for construction of dreadnaughts means Germany won't be building any more unless they get oil from someplace, despite the fact that pretty much 90 percent of the dreadnaughts of the period burned coal. (Notable exceptions were some US ships and the British Queen Elizabeth class). The Germans can't even trade for any in the game version I have because they don't have trade links to say the Ottomans or to Norway-Sweden. I would remove the oil link to the ability to build dreadnaughts.
Speed on various units: (this is an average)
Submarines (surface) 15 knots
Pre-dreadnaught 18 knots
Dreadnaughts-Super dreadnaughts 21 knots
Crusiers/Armored crusiers 24 knots
Battle crusiers 27 knots
Destroyers 30 knots
I would make troop transports 18 knots.
Given movements in game with Destroyers at 9, I would make the following adjustments to movements.
Destroyers-9
Battlecrusers (not in game)-8
Crusiers 7
Dreadnaughts 6
Pre-dreadnaughts, transports 5
Subs 4
Battleships (in the old sense) became pre-dreadnaughts when the Dreadnaught was launched. Dreadnaughts incorporated double the main gun armament of the typical pre-dreadnaught and also showed a speed increase over pre-dreads. Their armor protection was not that greatly increased (and in some cases, was worse than several pre-dreads), however, they were tougher to sink by virtue of being bigger ships (Dreadnaught displaced 20,000 tons vs the typical 15,000 tons of a pre-dread).
After dreadnaughts, there came super-dreadnaughts with better protection and gunpower, but no real increase in speed. (Dreadnaughts in the British fleet were 12 inch guns and super dreads had 13.5 inch guns). The term "battleship" reappeared after this and was meant as the next generation of ships after the super-dreads.
German ships were better subdivided and in general, tougher than British ships. The Germans were outnumbered 5 to 3 at Jutland, but inflicted losses at this ratio against the British, so ship for ship, the Germans need an edge some way. Two ways to do that in game terms. Make new units or tweak existing ones by giving the Germans a bit higher unit ratings (make more British green and some regulars and give the Germans veteran status). I recommend giving dreadnaughts an extra bubble of health to reflect their tougher status over pre-dreads, even tho their defence might be close to that of a pre-dread.
Now, I don't know that adding all these new units to the game adds much to playability, but here are some suggestions.
Dreadnaughts: Leave as is for basis of comparison. Suggest adding a bubble of health to them to make them more hardy as far as sinking them goes. I would consider bumping the bombard to 10 perhaps.
Pre-dreads: 12(8) 10 5
Cruisers (if you want to include them) 8(6) 8 7
Battlecrusiers (if you want to include them) 16(9) 8 8
Destroyers 6(4) 4 9
Subs 8 2 4
Transports 1 2 5
I would get rid of the ironclads with the major powers. They might be somewhat appropriate for the minor powers like Sweden. The Russians would need to be addressed the most there.
Ironclad 5(3) 3 5
I would also consider dispensing with the oil requirement for subs as well or Germany won't be able to build any. Destroyers are way overpowered and rarely achieved any success in WW1 against any "big" targets as torpedos were not that reliable yet (WW2 saw destroyers sink much bigger targets on several occasions because torpedo technology was much better). With their reduced ability, they can still deal with other destroyers and also with subs, which is historically what they did. Subs still have higher attack values, not because of crappy torpedos, but because of poor defences against them and the fact that they did score notable successes in WW1 against larger targets (U9 sinking 3 armored cruisers to name one).
Giving battlecruisers an extra bubble because of their size is a toss up.. the German versions should have them if you go nuts and give each side their own version. Their armor was along the lines of the last armored cruisers of the time (much like dreadnaught armor was along the last pre-dreadnaughts). The German BC's were an excellent blend of speed, gun power and protection while the Brits had poor protection (as evidence at Jutland when several British BC's exploded after having their turrets and magazines penetrated). British BC's were literally beer cans armed with sledge hammers.
As far as the machine gun debate, I won't go there too much, except to mention that the British used more infantry type weapons (the Vickers version was one of the best versions of the Maxim and Brit infantry weapons were among the best and most reliable in WW1) and less artillery while the French (who used the less reliable Hotchkiss and did not have as reliable infantry weapons) relied more on artillery to get things done. The British also did use heavy machineguns in offensive actions but it was usually to spress German troops on either side of the battle. As an example, one machine gun unit fired off over 1 million rounds in a 24 hour period in support of an offensive action of troops.
Overall, I need to spend more time playing around with things to get a feel on the land war side, but I can see the Germans easily taking Paris on the first turn and I can't help but think that really wrecks the French as a power in the game from a playability standpoint because even if they do take it back, they won't be making armies for awhile if ever.
Some other issues for strategic resources (port linking seems to be limited or not working)
British home isles has no rubber, so can't build WW1 infantry.
Germany has no oil, so no Dreadnaughts or subs other oil based items. Would either remove oil as a requirement for dreads and subs or give them one resource, which does not really work from a historical perspective either. Less coal and a oil might be justification for the German coal to oil plants, but I don't know what the status of that was during this time period (not much as I believe it was one of the reasons the Germans did not deploy tanks on an extensive scale, what fuel they had was going to subs and aircraft and they had to make decisons on what to build). Germany does not have horses either, but can usually trade for them with AH.
Mainland France does not have oil or rubber. Colonial France does not have iron or coal. Colonial France can build dreadnaughts and WW1 infantry while mainland France can't.
Russia does not have oil or rubber. They can build to get to oil, but it will take awhile.
Ottomans can build to rubber for WW1 infantry, but don't start with the ability.
Italy does not have oil.
Austria-Hungary does not have oil.
On tech, AH should have dreadnaughts (they had 3 at the start of the war).
The Russian and Ottoman navies need some work to get them into the modern times. I would get rid of all the ironclads and go with:
Russia-Baltic: 1 dread, 1 pre-dread, 2 destroyers
Russia-Black Sea: 1 pre-dread, 2 destroyers
Ottoman: 1 pre-dread, 2 destroyers.
One other note on the smaller powers like Denmark, Norway, Sweden. I did notice some mention of removing them from the game and creating space on the map. Having no settlers prevents anyone from taking advantage of this space for the most part and prevents them from interfering in the participation of the war. Don't know if this had been given any thought or not, but seemed a reasonable suggestion.
Wow! Did not mean to write a book on all this, but guess it wound up that way
I look forward to playing the scenario more and again wish to emphasis that I appreciate the efforts into putting it together and also working on making it better.
Thanks!
I realize I am very new to this forum and while I consider myself a veteran Civ player (and good wargamer in general), I have never had the time to work on scenarios or mess with them very much. I also consider myself a good history buff and I have worked with playtesting other game systems (pretty much board games) and I also was part of a team that published a gaming magazine for several years that included design your own units, scenarios and commentary. (Tech Factory if anyone recognizes the name for primarily Battle Tech).
Having gotten all that out of the way, hats off to the designers and workers of this scenario on what is obviously a lot of work.
After messing around with the game a bit, I would like to make some observations/suggestions.
First, there has been a lot said on naval units. Please let me toss in my two cents worth.
I feel there is a place in the game for the pre-dreads as they did play a role in WW1, both in European waters and also overseas. (Someone mention the Battle of Coronel and Cradock did indeed have a pre-dread assigned to his squadron, the Canopus, but it was not at the fight). In game, their values put them too close to dreadnaughts and a move speed of faster than dreadnaughts is not correct. Destroyers seem to be overpowered as well. Finally, the requirement of oil for construction of dreadnaughts means Germany won't be building any more unless they get oil from someplace, despite the fact that pretty much 90 percent of the dreadnaughts of the period burned coal. (Notable exceptions were some US ships and the British Queen Elizabeth class). The Germans can't even trade for any in the game version I have because they don't have trade links to say the Ottomans or to Norway-Sweden. I would remove the oil link to the ability to build dreadnaughts.
Speed on various units: (this is an average)
Submarines (surface) 15 knots
Pre-dreadnaught 18 knots
Dreadnaughts-Super dreadnaughts 21 knots
Crusiers/Armored crusiers 24 knots
Battle crusiers 27 knots
Destroyers 30 knots
I would make troop transports 18 knots.
Given movements in game with Destroyers at 9, I would make the following adjustments to movements.
Destroyers-9
Battlecrusers (not in game)-8
Crusiers 7
Dreadnaughts 6
Pre-dreadnaughts, transports 5
Subs 4
Battleships (in the old sense) became pre-dreadnaughts when the Dreadnaught was launched. Dreadnaughts incorporated double the main gun armament of the typical pre-dreadnaught and also showed a speed increase over pre-dreads. Their armor protection was not that greatly increased (and in some cases, was worse than several pre-dreads), however, they were tougher to sink by virtue of being bigger ships (Dreadnaught displaced 20,000 tons vs the typical 15,000 tons of a pre-dread).
After dreadnaughts, there came super-dreadnaughts with better protection and gunpower, but no real increase in speed. (Dreadnaughts in the British fleet were 12 inch guns and super dreads had 13.5 inch guns). The term "battleship" reappeared after this and was meant as the next generation of ships after the super-dreads.
German ships were better subdivided and in general, tougher than British ships. The Germans were outnumbered 5 to 3 at Jutland, but inflicted losses at this ratio against the British, so ship for ship, the Germans need an edge some way. Two ways to do that in game terms. Make new units or tweak existing ones by giving the Germans a bit higher unit ratings (make more British green and some regulars and give the Germans veteran status). I recommend giving dreadnaughts an extra bubble of health to reflect their tougher status over pre-dreads, even tho their defence might be close to that of a pre-dread.
Now, I don't know that adding all these new units to the game adds much to playability, but here are some suggestions.
Dreadnaughts: Leave as is for basis of comparison. Suggest adding a bubble of health to them to make them more hardy as far as sinking them goes. I would consider bumping the bombard to 10 perhaps.
Pre-dreads: 12(8) 10 5
Cruisers (if you want to include them) 8(6) 8 7
Battlecrusiers (if you want to include them) 16(9) 8 8
Destroyers 6(4) 4 9
Subs 8 2 4
Transports 1 2 5
I would get rid of the ironclads with the major powers. They might be somewhat appropriate for the minor powers like Sweden. The Russians would need to be addressed the most there.
Ironclad 5(3) 3 5
I would also consider dispensing with the oil requirement for subs as well or Germany won't be able to build any. Destroyers are way overpowered and rarely achieved any success in WW1 against any "big" targets as torpedos were not that reliable yet (WW2 saw destroyers sink much bigger targets on several occasions because torpedo technology was much better). With their reduced ability, they can still deal with other destroyers and also with subs, which is historically what they did. Subs still have higher attack values, not because of crappy torpedos, but because of poor defences against them and the fact that they did score notable successes in WW1 against larger targets (U9 sinking 3 armored cruisers to name one).
Giving battlecruisers an extra bubble because of their size is a toss up.. the German versions should have them if you go nuts and give each side their own version. Their armor was along the lines of the last armored cruisers of the time (much like dreadnaught armor was along the last pre-dreadnaughts). The German BC's were an excellent blend of speed, gun power and protection while the Brits had poor protection (as evidence at Jutland when several British BC's exploded after having their turrets and magazines penetrated). British BC's were literally beer cans armed with sledge hammers.
As far as the machine gun debate, I won't go there too much, except to mention that the British used more infantry type weapons (the Vickers version was one of the best versions of the Maxim and Brit infantry weapons were among the best and most reliable in WW1) and less artillery while the French (who used the less reliable Hotchkiss and did not have as reliable infantry weapons) relied more on artillery to get things done. The British also did use heavy machineguns in offensive actions but it was usually to spress German troops on either side of the battle. As an example, one machine gun unit fired off over 1 million rounds in a 24 hour period in support of an offensive action of troops.
Overall, I need to spend more time playing around with things to get a feel on the land war side, but I can see the Germans easily taking Paris on the first turn and I can't help but think that really wrecks the French as a power in the game from a playability standpoint because even if they do take it back, they won't be making armies for awhile if ever.
Some other issues for strategic resources (port linking seems to be limited or not working)
British home isles has no rubber, so can't build WW1 infantry.
Germany has no oil, so no Dreadnaughts or subs other oil based items. Would either remove oil as a requirement for dreads and subs or give them one resource, which does not really work from a historical perspective either. Less coal and a oil might be justification for the German coal to oil plants, but I don't know what the status of that was during this time period (not much as I believe it was one of the reasons the Germans did not deploy tanks on an extensive scale, what fuel they had was going to subs and aircraft and they had to make decisons on what to build). Germany does not have horses either, but can usually trade for them with AH.
Mainland France does not have oil or rubber. Colonial France does not have iron or coal. Colonial France can build dreadnaughts and WW1 infantry while mainland France can't.
Russia does not have oil or rubber. They can build to get to oil, but it will take awhile.
Ottomans can build to rubber for WW1 infantry, but don't start with the ability.
Italy does not have oil.
Austria-Hungary does not have oil.
On tech, AH should have dreadnaughts (they had 3 at the start of the war).
The Russian and Ottoman navies need some work to get them into the modern times. I would get rid of all the ironclads and go with:
Russia-Baltic: 1 dread, 1 pre-dread, 2 destroyers
Russia-Black Sea: 1 pre-dread, 2 destroyers
Ottoman: 1 pre-dread, 2 destroyers.
One other note on the smaller powers like Denmark, Norway, Sweden. I did notice some mention of removing them from the game and creating space on the map. Having no settlers prevents anyone from taking advantage of this space for the most part and prevents them from interfering in the participation of the war. Don't know if this had been given any thought or not, but seemed a reasonable suggestion.
Wow! Did not mean to write a book on all this, but guess it wound up that way
I look forward to playing the scenario more and again wish to emphasis that I appreciate the efforts into putting it together and also working on making it better.
Thanks!
Gogf
Indescribable
@Klyden: Wow! Thanks a ton!
@Padma: Sorry. I really should have posted it in English. I couldn't read that.... I used a translator. Sorry.
@Padma: Sorry. I really should have posted it in English. I couldn't read that.... I used a translator. Sorry.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Deleted
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Hi, Klyden! You have six posts ATM, but I think a "Wellcome to CFC" is still in order, so there you have it. An extra history buff is always handy to have.
To mess up the terminology further, the term "Superdreadnought" was later resurected to describe the very biggest WWII era battleships. The archetypical example, I guess, are the Japanese Yamato and Musashi, which each mounted nine 46cm (18.1") guns. To a first approximation, the size of a shell goes up with the cube of the calibre ...
But that was me going off a tangent. Let's throw a few 15" shells in the pond:
Radical Idea: Do away with unit resource requirements entirely. WWI wasn't about denying the enemy critical resources, and despite the 4.5 year blocade, Germany was never rendered unable to produce high class weaponry, and lots and piles of it.
To mess up the terminology further, the term "Superdreadnought" was later resurected to describe the very biggest WWII era battleships. The archetypical example, I guess, are the Japanese Yamato and Musashi, which each mounted nine 46cm (18.1") guns. To a first approximation, the size of a shell goes up with the cube of the calibre ...
But that was me going off a tangent. Let's throw a few 15" shells in the pond:
Radical Idea: Do away with unit resource requirements entirely. WWI wasn't about denying the enemy critical resources, and despite the 4.5 year blocade, Germany was never rendered unable to produce high class weaponry, and lots and piles of it.
Thanks for the welcome.
I would agree. Where the blockade hurt the Central Powers the most was in the stomach. Germany was brought to near starvation by the end of the war because they could not import the right chemicals for fertilizer.
Couple of other notes:
August vonMackensen was a great leader for the Germans in the East. He oversaw the Gorlice offensive and also took care of Rumania when they chose to enter the war.
More I think about it, the more I like Switzerland to become impassable. One other thing about the Swiss is they literally do have a Swiss bank account that can make a good addition to whatever power you play as the Central powers. As Germany, I can easily clean him out for well over 3k by trading tech, etc. This allows the Germans to go on a heavy negative money binge to speed their progress up on the scientific front.
I would agree. Where the blockade hurt the Central Powers the most was in the stomach. Germany was brought to near starvation by the end of the war because they could not import the right chemicals for fertilizer.
Couple of other notes:
August vonMackensen was a great leader for the Germans in the East. He oversaw the Gorlice offensive and also took care of Rumania when they chose to enter the war.
More I think about it, the more I like Switzerland to become impassable. One other thing about the Swiss is they literally do have a Swiss bank account that can make a good addition to whatever power you play as the Central powers. As Germany, I can easily clean him out for well over 3k by trading tech, etc. This allows the Germans to go on a heavy negative money binge to speed their progress up on the scientific front.
Similar threads
