Preview: The Great War C3C

[Rocoteh]

Unit Stats:

NAME-A-D-M-BS-BR(or OR)-RF-COST-TECHC3C-TECHTGW

Marine-12-6-1 0-0-0 120 Amphibious Warfare-Combined Arms
Cavalry-8-4-3 0-0-0 80 Military Tradition-Same
Infantry-6-8-1 0-0-0 90 Refining-Magazine Rifles
Artillery-0-0-1 15-3-3 80 Replaceable Parts-Mobile Offensive
Tear Gas-0-0-1 10-2-2 40 Combustion-Static Defense Tactics
Pre-DBB-5-6-4 6-1-2 90 Ironclads-Pre-Dreadnought Battleships
Transport-1-2-6 0-0-0 100 Atomic Theory-Combustion
Carrier 1-8-7 0-0-0 180 Adv. Flight-WW1 Experience
Submarine 8-4-7 0-0-0 100 Atomic Theory-Combustion
Destroyer 12-8-12 10-2-2 120 Atomic Theory-Combustion
Dread-BB-18-12-7 16-3-2 200 Sci. Method-Dreadnoughts
Biplane-4-2-1 4-4-1 80 M. Production-Assault Tactics & Flight
Lt. Bomber 0-2-1 12-8-3 100 Flight-Improved Flight
Cossack 8-5-3 0-0-0 90 Military Tradition-Same
Guerilla-6-6-1 3-0-1 90 Nationalism-Same
AC-15-10-10 8-1-2 160 Electronics-Cruisers
Paratrooper-6-10-1 0-0-0 90 Amp. Warfare-Combined Arms
Flak-1-6-1 0-0-0 70 Flight-Improved Flight
Field Gun 0-0-1 10-1-2 50 R. Parts-Mobile Offensive Tactics
Lt. AT 0-0-1 12-2-2 70 Combustion-Static Defense
Hvy. AT 0-0-1 20-6-5 120 M. Production-Assault Tactics & Flight
Chlorine Gas 0-0-2 16-3-5 60 M. Production-Assault T. & Flight
Triplane-6-4-1 8-8-3 90 Flight-Improved Planes

Infantry Units:
German-12-10-1 0-0-0 90 Refining-Magazine Rifles
Kaiserjager-16-12-2 0-0-0 120 M. Warfare-Kaiserschlacht
Austria-8-9-1 0-0-0 90 Refining-Mag. Rifles
Alliance-8-10-1 0-0-0 90 Refining-Mag. Rifles
Russian-7-10-1 0-0-0 90 Refining-Mag. Rifles
Turkey-7-9-1 0-0-0 90 Refining-Mag. Rifles
Italy-8-10-1 0-0-0 90 Refining-Mag Rifles
UK-10-12-1 0-0-0 90 Refining-Mag. Rifles
France-10-10-1 0-0-0 90 Refining-Mag Rifles
Entente-8-10-1 0-0-0 90 Refining-Mag Rifles
USA-10-12-1 0-0-0 90 Refining-Mag Rifles

Armor-14-6-1 0-0-0 100 M. Production-Assault T. & Flight
EntenteMG-1-15-1 10-0-3 80 Combustion-Static Defense
AllianceMG-1-16-1 10-0-3 80 Combustion-Static Defense
Light Cruiser-10-8-15 6-1-1 140 Electronics-Cruisers
Battlecruiser-16-8-8 14-3-4 180 Radio-Battlecruisers
Tank-16-8-2 0-0-0 120 M. Warfare-Kaiserschlacht

Rocoteh

 

[Bobby Lee]

Question: Haveing read a few books on strategy (and if u've ever read strategy or tactics books u realize they are quite a history lesson) I came across a few things in "On Infantry" that seemed to apply to unit stats in this case...

Specifically in this particular book it takes the position that because of tactics used (err doctrine of the era) the infantry for the allies was used....well to put it bluntly stupidly thus giving the Germans a LARGE advantage there (maybe in civ terms like 1 to 2 points top end) especially when the Germans were on the defense though the Germans were also better than the allies at offense. THus meaning that the Germans should either be better at defense than offense (stat wise) or even...I can't see making any infantry unit stronger offensively of that era...

(BTW - when i say this I not only mean the European Allies but also the US as well....we were slightly better than say Britain or France at the time (doctrine wise) but not exactly genius quality if u catch the drift)

Just a bit of constructive criticism

 

[Rocoteh]

Bobby Lee,

Interesting comment.

Yes I think German Infantry should be maybe:
12-14-1.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

 

[Bobby Lee]

Only glad that I could help if only in a small part


I think u had mentioned that u were going to give all infantry a build fort command.... I assume u intend to keep the upgraded version of a fort to the workers in order to simulate the well I guess they did call them forts spaced out along the front? or how do u intend to show those strong points? (heh if u havent already reasoned that regular infantry only fortifies to make trenches and then can create forts for those?)

 

[jamesjkirk]

This past semester I took a class solely covering WWI. I'm not claiming to have any advanced knowledge or special insight, but I'm no novice either.
I think it's a mistake to not let Germany have tanks. If I'm not mistaken, that Keegan quote is in reference to the number of tank built, not owned by the particular countries. Germany made very few A7Vs, but had several captured MkIVs and FT17s in service in the war. But just because the Germans didn't dedicate much to their tank programs doesn't mean the human player shouldn't be able to make that choice themselves. The trade off could be between a tech leading to tanks and one leading to the stormtroopers used in the Spring of 1918 campaign.

I'm wondering what the difference between tanks and armor will be? Will it just be the difference between light tanks like the FT17 and heavy ones like the MkIV? Also, what I find particularly interesting is the Allied plans for the 1919 campaign that obviously never happened. It would have used coordination between infantry, tanks and airpower to breakthrough and get behind German lines to disrupt their command and control. I've heard it called many times the first blitzkrieg plan. The plan would have used combined light and heavy tanks (w/ the MkVII replacing the MkIV).

Also I think your tech tree and flow of the war would go better (and keep the scenario more interesting) by adding more updates to planes. There were technological rushes for things like the interupter gear and advances in tactics, like the use of fighter formations, which kept the war in the air going back and forth. Kinboat's made a lot of WWI air units, so that shouldn't be a problem.

Anyway, I hope this goes well and I look forward to it, and I just wanted to throw in my two cents

 

[Sarevok]

Im Back from my "Administrative Leave"

At this point, the "armor" unit is avalible for the Germans, but the Tank is not. Intead of getting tanks, Germans get Stromtroopers (KaiserJagers).

as far as the tech tree is concerned... Id wait on it as I doubt i can finish that soon.

 

[Sarevok]

Originally posted by Bobby Lee
Only glad that I could help if only in a small part


I think u had mentioned that u were going to give all infantry a build fort command.... I assume u intend to keep the upgraded version of a fort to the workers in order to simulate the well I guess they did call them forts spaced out along the front? or how do u intend to show those strong points? (heh if u havent already reasoned that regular infantry only fortifies to make trenches and then can create forts for those?)

The forts will be worker only, but all infantry can make "Trenches". I might make a new Worker unit, an "Combat Engineer" that makes fortresses or the "strongpoints" you describe.

BTW: See first post in thread to see how you can get a BETA version.

EDIT: I did make a Combat Engineer Unit.

 

[Sarevok]

BETA applications are now being accepted. You must send me a PM, then tommorow I will ship out all the BETA's to the applicants. You MUST send me a PM in order to get the BETA. Even if you dont however, I do randomly PM people the BETA, but dont count on being one of those people!

 

[Sarevok]

I have personally done a load-up of TGW to check if everything worked correctly. I got everything now working how it should, so the BETA will be avalible for tomorrow's testers. These are some of the thing's I found:

Negatives:

- When you choose your civ, all the names will be "Orlando" because the 1st player in player properties is Italy. Just re-name the leader if youre going to pick form the other civs, likely will:

Britain- Lloyd George
France-Clemenceau
Germany-Wilhelm II
Ottomans-Mehmet V
Russia- Nicholas II
Italy-Orlando
Austria-Franz-Josef

Sadly I cant find a fix to this, but it shouldnt be too much of a hassle.

- In game, I found the government (germany) could allow 100 units, but had over 500. Unit numbers in every government for town,city, and metropolis have been doubled. Also each government gets 50 free units.

- Money was also an issue, bad enough Germany would have lost 600 gold a turn. With this, every civ had their money amounts multiplied by 4. So germny now has 12,000 gold and The lowest is 800 gold (Albania).

- This isnt really an issue, but when I had launched the scenario, First I had forgotten to set the year, but also the alliances. Not really a "Problem" as both are fixed now (Scenario extends to 1920) it just meants I have to wait longer as I have to load it again

- I looked at the tech tree, and realized that germany could with the given minimum research time i gave to all civs (26 turns, half a year) Germany could get KaiserJagers in August of 1915 istead of March of 1918! Some techs were (and still will be) removed from each civ to make sure that both tanks AND Kaiserjagers are not obtainable until they were actually discovered. Research minimum time has also been increased to 52 turns (a year).

Positives:

- Loading time: 1 Hour exactly on my comp, which is fairly average (700+ MGhz, 256 RAM, Windows ME). Considering that Russia (I havent checked yet) may have 1000 units on the map, and with every ship in the european navies included on a 1:1 ratio, thats pretty good.

- Tech tree is exactly how I wanted it to be, no flaws, no errors.

- The added units and graphics work well, no problems

- Civilopedia (incomplete though it is) is good.

- Flavors work, Germans wont be getting American Reinforcements and the opposing forces will hate eachother, but BOTH will like those toggled Neutral nations, hopefully killing the age-old problem with WW1 maps of having Germany hit Denmark or Russia charge into Scandivania.

- Production power is right where I want it, especially in the Ruhr.

- Scenario is exaclty how i wanted it to be (with all the negatives fixed of course). You really cant ask for more than that.

Neutral:

Additional Flavors were added (Britain, Germany, France) for their respected countries. These make sure that I dont have to make all the reinforcement improvements avalible when someone gets integrated Defense (Good luck BTW, all techs in the modern age, now dubbed "the future" cost 1000 now, though minimum and maximum research time is 52 turns. It might be interesting as I put Panzers at one of the opening modern techs, so a germna player using trade can get panzers possibly for the last year of the game, but they only have the offensive power they have in the epic game, same attack power as the KaiserJager so they arent as usefull.) This means that These players can build the reinfocement buildings in cities of theirs that dont have them (for hefty sheld cost though).

This is my current research data, Im going to improve the map every way I can. The next time Im back here the BETA will be ready to go absolutely and people will get to see what I have just described, and I hope you enjoy it.

- Sarevok

 

[The Last Conformist]

Reflection on MGs: since they've got higher DF than infantry, you'll need multiple ones on the same tile to get use of the defensive bombard. This intended?

Surely a light cruiser shouldn't outclass a pre-D BB? Speed is all well and good, but to sink the dinosaur it would have to close, and light cruisers do not take well to 12" guns (of which the Canopus, the only pre-D I could find data for in a hurry, had four).

 

[Sarevok]

Personally, I admit I was a bit clueless on how to do the stats for the ships, except the Battlecruiser. Any Stat Suggestions?

There are many MG's on the map ofr ever civ. Turkey, who has 100 army units (these are units in stacks, I have 1 unit garrisons for the rest of the cities for guarding) Turkey also has roughly 15 Light Artillery and 10 MG's. Small, but MG's are the best defensive unit in the game and will likely be massed by the AI (that will be hell to deal with)

Rocoteh has told me that Russian infantry sould be weakened as there are so many of them (as in my previous post i said Russia could have as many as 1000 units, and it might not be a far off guess), that Russia dosent become a raging avalance. What are the suggestions for weakening their stats?

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'm no expert on WWI era warships, but the Canopus had those 12"ers, and other guns and armour comparable to or better than a post-D armoured cruiser. 15.12.5 10.1.2, perhaps?¨

Also, a BC shouldn't be any slower than a AC.

Edit: Suggested range of pre-D bombard corrected to one.

 

[Bobby Lee]

you might weaken Russian Infantry stats in general, sumthing like a 6-8 maybe and a hp penalty due to half of em being disloyal or sumthing? what im trying to think of is how u would go about showing that Russia basically fell apart to the Communists...

 

[Rocoteh]

Since ALL ships are 1:1 I will come with
a suggestion for new stats later on.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

Comparing production costs:

During WWI the basic Infantry Division had 2 Brigades.
Each Brigade had 2 Regiments.

Then during WWII things become more confused.
The basic Infantry Division had 3 Regiments.
Brigades could be everything from a Tank Brigade
in Soviet (de facto a Tank Battalion) to a reinforced
Regiment.

Anyway in The Great War an Infantry unit = 1 Infantry Regiment.
One should keep that in mind when comparing costs
with the costs for naval units.

I think there should be sharp cost spread between
Destroyers and Dreadnoughts.

Destroyers and Light Cruisers firing at Dreadnoughts
during WWI would have no effect.

Then the Destroyers had torpedos. To be real effective
they should be launched at 3 km or less. (That is against
Dreadknoughts)

Thus both cost and combat power should be spread.

With regard to Russia: If we do not want "the Russian
steamroller" coming to alive, attack factors should be
down. Most units should be conscript level.

Rocoteh

 

[Bobby Lee]

russian infantry at conscript level? sounds like a plan ....definately should playtest 1st

 

[The Last Conformist]

That'll mean redoing warship stats from scratch - you currently have DDs with an attack value equal to the defense of a dreadnought. (And light cruisers weaker than destroyers?!?)

Tangentially, I'm normally skeptic to HP bonuses, since they mess things up, but right now they hit me as just the thing to simulate the differences between BBs and BCs. Just a suggestion.

 

[Bobby Lee]

simulateing the difference in armor? but didnt they have less guns too?

 

[Rocoteh]

The Last Conformist,

I think you are right. If not Destroyers and Cruisers
should be Flotillas/Squadrons but individual ships
HP bonuses could be good to use instead of changing
stats to much.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

 

[The Last Conformist]

Bobby Lee: Having BB-style firepower on a ship with cruiser-like speed is kind of the idea with a BC. The British BC Inflexible had eight 16"ers, which any battleship, aside from a few WWII-era superdreadnoughts, would be happy to be associated with.

Rocoteh: DDs and light cruisers* as flotillas is an interesting concept; would mean less units to move and shorter turn waits. One possibility would be going down the ACW road and replace, say, three 3HP units with one 9HP.

* Remind me - the abbrev is 'CL'?