RtW: Add-On Pack 3 BETA for 3.17

[Chamboozer]

Yes the civ4 engine does allow this, you just have to know what to do, and i'm sure Dale knows what he is doing. And that's the whole thing, YOU want an ENJOYABLE game. Besides the fact that this is only what YOU want, making it historically accurate would make it less enjoyable yes, but make it more challenging. So basically what you have just said is that you want an easy game that you can win rather then one that is hard and would make you think.

*sigh*

Yes, the units can be made perfectly historically accurate, and that would balance the units, but the AI would not be able to handle it in a balanced, historically accurate way and would unbalance the gameplay. Look in the thread called unit strengths/cost: realistic to see if you like the ideas there.

 

[MajorWinters]

I wasn't trying to be mean or anything, but on your subject of unpredictability and allowing each nation a chance to win, go and read my post about VeteranLurker's idea about making the AI make more tactically sound decisions. If Dale (or anyone else for that matter) could do that AND make all the units historically accurate then each nation would still be able to win it might just take longer for certain factions and you wouldn't be able to in doing the same thing twice. I sure that something can be done to the AI to make them better, of course we could just avoid that whole problem, make all the units historically accurate, few other changes, and just start up a massive online game where there is a human player for each faction and then the stupidity of the AI wouldn't unbalance the game.

 

[Chamboozer]

I think the main reason that it is so easy to conquer the Americas is because non-unique units can't stand up against anything. You don't even need air/artillery support to beat them.

 

[Dale]

Let me point out here, that I agree on the AI. It sucks. I've said that ever since Warlords came out that the AI was made into a . .. .. .. .. .. Even the BtS AI sucks wads, though you'll find the RtW AI is a lot more warlike in its play than the BtS AI.

Now let me point out that I am NOT an AI programmer, I am a CONCEPT programmer. I can usually nut through AI programing and make minor changes here or there, but only Blake knows the AI well enough to complete what you're requesting, and unless you can stop him from entering the Budhist Monastory, he's lost to us.

As for my decision on unit strengths? Read back through this and other threads. I chose them based on simple fun gameplay. I don't WANT RtW to be this massive complex beast that only 20 people know how to play. I don't WANT it to be Hearts of Iron 2. What I DO want it to be is a fun game that any Joe can pick up and play. I am catering for the mass-market, not the grognard market.

What was my real aim in creating this Mod then? What has been my driving force behind this entire Mod?

To show the Futility of War!

No one has ever asked me why the music, the screenshots, the movies and especially the final movie are so depressing and sombre. It's to show that no matter what you do, war is futile. If you want a game that glorifies war, then play Hearts of Iron 2.

Why did I tell everyone the above? Because both points end with the result that I want mass-market appeal to get my message across.

It is fact that the closer you get to mass-market appeal, the further you get from reality. THE GENERAL POPULATION DON'T WANT TO PLAY WW2 AS IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED! They want to play a fun game where you don't even need to know who won, and play anyone and win. Hell, even China can win this game, stick THAT up your historical reality!

The bottom line is, I am staying with mass-market appeal. I would prefer 50,000 happy players and 50 pissed off grognards, than 50 happy grognards and no other players.

I fully support Mod-Mods which work from RtW's base to be setup to address historical reality terms.

 

[MajorWinters]

Well Dale then please, like i asked before, post the engine that you use to make rtw so that "us 50 grognards" can make it good.

 

[Dale]

I think some people are slightly incorrect in just how good US troops were compared to other nations troops. Numerically more troops does not equate to superior troops.

The US troops were no where near the best troops in WW2. They lacked doctrine, experience, unified leadership and discipline as an army. They acted with little regard to overall Allied operations many times, completely stuffing up many of those operations. Hehehe.

So I find it humerous when people ask that US troops in RtW be beefed up higher than say, British troops.

 

[Dale]

Well Dale then please, like i asked before, post the engine that you use to make rtw so that "us 50 grognards" can make it good.

It's all there available in the download. I use no extra tools than what is readily available.

XML/Python editing - I use notepad.
SDK editing - I use Visual Studio 2003 (though there are other compilers).

PS: "can make it good"? I'm sorry the Mod doesn't live up to your standards. I wish you well in your attempt to bring historical accuracy to RtW. I'll be interested to see how you keep the fun in the Mod, whilst making everything historically accurate, and balance ten scenarios too. My Fav is 1939 Europe.

 

[Joe Harker]

Well Dale then please, like i asked before, post the engine that you use to make rtw so that "us 50 grognards" can make it good

You can mod it now yourself if you want to.

 

[MajorWinters]

I only plan on moding the global map, Dale, so it shouldn't be too hard, oh and Harker you need to pay attention i have already said that i plan on moding it myself. However before i get into it Dale what do you plan on doing in the full version of addon pack 3? and do you plan on releasing any other addon packs and finally is there anything that you can tell me about modifiying the AI?
Thanks in advance. Oh and before i forget the general population isn't worth your time or concern, if they don't want accuracy then the shouldn't buy games that are set in the past. The only people who are worth listening too concerning a topic are those who know about said topic and like said topic.

 

[Joe Harker]

What do you mean by "post the engine" then?

 

[MajorWinters]

Engine refers to what ever he uses to create rtw.

 

[Laurier]

PS: "can make it good"? I'm sorry the Mod doesn't live up to your standards. I wish you well in your attempt to bring historical accuracy to RtW. I'll be interested to see how you keep the fun in the Mod, whilst making everything historically accurate, and balance ten scenarios too. My Fav is 1939 Europe.

It's easy to make the game historically accurate. You take out all elements of chance from the game engine and dictate every move that is played according to the one true account of events.

Perhaps it's not so much about playing as it is modelling, but it's still fun.

For the person doing the modelling.

 

[AngryHistorian]

I think some people are slightly incorrect in just how good US troops were compared to other nations troops. Numerically more troops does not equate to superior troops.

The US troops were no where near the best troops in WW2. They lacked doctrine, experience, unified leadership and discipline as an army. They acted with little regard to overall Allied operations many times, completely stuffing up many of those operations. Hehehe.

So I find it humerous when people ask that US troops in RtW be beefed up higher than say, British troops.

Maybe in 1942, when America sent its army over to Africa in Operation Torch, but American troops were not always illdisciplined and they did not outnumber their enemies all of the time. U.S. infantry were also the most destructive infantry in the war because of their easy access to a variety of heavy weaponry. And undisciplined? Please, most Brits were more concerned about the royal family and their recntly brewed (on the back of their tank) nice spot of tea than they were about the war. Experience was most certainly gained by late 1944, the American army had perfected doctrines for almost any type of warfare. And unified leadership? Well, there were conflicts between the conservative thinking Brits and the more liberal and, sometimes arrogant American generals. But those were Anglo-American conflicts, not conflicts within their own army! But I ask you this: Who accomplished more, Monty, or Patton. Monty's force may have been more "Experienced", but you try to find me more loyal soldiers than under Patton's 3rd Army. Monty was so horrible as a commander, that his own comrades and fellow generals hated him. And as for doctrines? Please, Britain was fighting another WW1, (large artillery barrages, massive infantry rushes, tanks being used as close infantry support). Seriously, reread your history books, you cannot say Britsih infantry were better than U.S. infantry.

 

[MajorWinters]

Also Dale concerning your statement about American infantry and British infantry, go read some WW2 history books, at the least google it (you probably won't get reliable info though). American infantry at the start were under qualified but unlike the brits they took the initiative, and din't rely completely on their officers for guidence. If a brit commander died during a firefight the soldiers would still keep asking him "WHAT DO WE DO, SIR??. Once into the war american tactics improved and training was better. I mean look at the 2nd Ranger battalion, they climbed Point Du Hoc with 200 some men took over the place against a numerically superior foe, and supposedly "better" foe, completed their objectives then HELD the hill for over 24 hours against increasing enemy attack until reinforcements arrived and relieved them. Then of course there is the 101st and 82nd airborne divisions at Normandy, in operation Market Garden (argueably the biggest military blunder in all of history, thank you Monty) and the valiant defense of the city of Bastogne in the Ardennes forest during the Battle of the Bulge they faced overwhelming odds all the time and still prevailed. When do you here about the Brits infantry? not much

 

[AngryHistorian]

Also Dale concerning your statement about American infantry and British infantry, go read some WW2 history books, at the least google it (you probably won't get reliable info though). American infantry at the start were under qualified but unlike the brits they took the initiative, and din't rely completely on their officers for guidence. If a brit commander died during a firefight the soldiers would still keep asking him "WHAT DO WE DO, SIR??. Once into the war american tactics improved and training was better. I mean look at the 2nd Ranger battalion, they climbed Point Du Hoc with 200 some men took over the place against a numerically superior foe, and supposedly "better" foe, completed their objectives then HELD the hill for over 24 hours against increasing enemy attack until reinforcements arrived and relieved them. Then of course there is the 101st and 82nd airborne divisions at Normandy, in operation Market Garden (argueably the biggest military blunder in all of history, thank you Monty) and the valiant defense of the city of Bastogne in the Ardennes forest during the Battle of the Bulge they faced overwhelming odds all the time and still prevailed. When do you here about the Brits infantry? not much

Thats one reason why I like the new Battle of the Bulge MOD for Company of Heroes. The 101st Airborne had held Bastogne for close to 2 weeks before the Ardennes offensive was finally broken. One of the first command powers is "Patton to the Rescue", and the last one to get is "Monty Finally Reacts". That makes me laugh every time anyone says the Brits are better than the Americans in WW2. Still funny.

 

[Dale]

Oh please, the 101st? The only commanding officer in the entire Allied nations who believed putting a jeep into a glider won't make the plane crash.

Also note I said INFANTRY. US had better equipment.

As for Monty, yes he might've been disliked but he beat the Desert Fox. And I'd pit Zhukov against 10 Pattons, and he'd STILL win!

Besides, Russian tanks and Zhukov's tactics were much better than US's. Oh, armament might have been heavier, but pointless when a Russian T-76 can fire two shells to one US M4.

As for individual battles..... oooo..... the US took one hill.

What about English fighters in Battle of Britain? Red Army in Stalingrad? Aussie troops in Papua? Indian troops in Burma?

Every army had it's glorious victories..... and their glorious defeats. But militarily, the US were not the best force on the field. There were other finer armies. The only reason the US appears unstoppable in WW2 is due to unlimited production resources, and mass-unskilled manpower pool for the draft.

 

[MajorWinters]

I didn't say that the US was the BEST, but come on, THE RED ARMY??? They a one rifle per 3 men, and were conscrips they had no trianing, and MONTY??? beat the desert fox what are you talking about?? Rommel was understrength underequiped no airpower and had outdated equipment Monty outnumbered him ten to one and had abundent supplies Monty didn't beat rommel Monty's troops beat rommel WITH AMERICAN help and eve nthen when we finally did take Africa it was because Rommel was on SICK LEAVE. You really need to learn more about WW2, and i didn't say that the sherman was better then the t-34 but the tiger was, and the panther, and the tiger2, the t-34 could just last longer then a sherman against one of the above german tanks cus of its stupid sloped armor, Oh the english fighters over Britian got lucky, they were lucky that Hitler was an idiot he stopped bombing their airfields and they lucked out in their fighting. Also i didn't say that the Zhukov was a bad general but 10 pattons i don't think so you really need to go learn more before saying this stuff, of course all of this is highly argueable, but anyway, oh yeah, ONE HILL?????? THAT WAS NOT ONE HILL, THEY WERE ONE HUNDRED FOOT HIGH CLIFFS THAT THE RANGERS HAD TO CLIMB WHILE UNDER FIRE AND AS I SAID TEHN HOLD THOSE CLIFFS FOR OVER 24 HOURS i hardly call that a glorious battle, AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE BRITISH WERE DOING AT THIS TIME ?????? SITING ON GOLD BEACH BREWING TEA!!!!!! "Hey do you think we should go help out those yanks over there??, No No No they're here to help us not the other way around."

 

[ZeeGermans]

You won't be able to use saves from old versions with this one.

So, the 1936 Europe scenario, 1936 Pacific scenario (the ones that came with the original BTS), etc. aren't available with the beta? I guess that was my biggest concern.

 

[Chamboozer]

So, the 1936 Europe scenario, 1936 Pacific scenario (the ones that came with the original BTS), etc. aren't available with the beta? I guess that was my biggest concern.

The scenarios are there, but you won't be able to continue your saved games from before the update.

 

[AngryHistorian]

Oh please, the 101st? The only commanding officer in the entire Allied nations who believed putting a jeep into a glider won't make the plane crash.

Also note I said INFANTRY. US had better equipment.

As for Monty, yes he might've been disliked but he beat the Desert Fox. And I'd pit Zhukov against 10 Pattons, and he'd STILL win!

Besides, Russian tanks and Zhukov's tactics were much better than US's. Oh, armament might have been heavier, but pointless when a Russian T-76 can fire two shells to one US M4.

As for individual battles..... oooo..... the US took one hill.

What about English fighters in Battle of Britain? Red Army in Stalingrad? Aussie troops in Papua? Indian troops in Burma?

Every army had it's glorious victories..... and their glorious defeats. But militarily, the US were not the best force on the field. There were other finer armies. The only reason the US appears unstoppable in WW2 is due to unlimited production resources, and mass-unskilled manpower pool for the draft.

Beat the Desert Fox? Oooo, what an accomplishment! "The Divisional order of battle on 21 June was 145 in the east, with 38 in France, 12 in Norway, 2 in Libya, 1 in Denmark, and 12 in the Balkans." -(History of the German Army, Keith Simpson) Wow, Monty had about 200,000 men, more than ample amounts of artillery, twice as much armor, supply than Rommel. Rommel had 2 understrength, outdated divisions, with no air support and little supply and fuel. Thats like a heavyweight boxing champ breaking a piece of paper. Oh and wow, Zhukov was the one who came up with the brilliant plan to build and operate massive hordes so Manstein couldn't outmaneuver their forces. Oh boy! My younger brother could think that up, just build tons of units!! And the Red Army at Stalingrad, wow how could you consider throwing countless lives away in an assault that got to nowhere. When did the "1 rifle per 2 men" rule start to win battles? The only reason the Soviets won is because the German ran out of ammunition to mow down the Soviet conscripts with! They also got tired of smelling rotting Siberian farm boy bodies every day, so they surrendered! The U.S. took one hill, YEAH RIGHT! Know how many cities we captured before Monty liberated Caen?? Oh, and did I forget to mention that without the U.S., neither the British, nor the Soviets, nor any other little country or resistance group would have the ability to mount any attack! LEND LEASE! HELLO! Oh and yeah, i dont know about you, but soviet tanks may have won them WW2, but they didn't win them the Cold War! It doesn't matter that they may have heavier tanks, oh booh hoo, the Germans had tanks that were larger than any tank ever built!