[SCENARIO] World War I

I LOVE this scenario! Great work Trip and thank you!

A trench improvement would be extraordinary and historically acurate. Other than that, I feel like the civil unrest and its barbarian attacks are a tad too much. Maybe that's just me. I played my first game with the UK and I had to fight constantly on my own soil, wich sucked a lot.

 

Well, I've played two games so far on Noble once with Austria-Hungary and another as Italy. I realize that they're not the major belligerents really, so perhaps these comments don't really pertain to the game when played from all angles, but:

1) I spent far too much of the game trying just to get my civ into working order and even then, I was fairing better than the major belligerents.

2) The rebellions are a nice touch, but I think they need to be brought to their logical conclusion. To me, large-scale rebellion ought to take place in areas of a different national identity from the civ. For example, there should be rebel forces popping up in Ireland, but not really in Britain itself, or Arab forces in the Ottoman Empire, etc. I think the home areas should not really have much or even any rebellion while the non-state national cities should have intense rebellion but even then it ought to be a lot of units within a very short time span rather than a couple of units every few turns throughout the game.

3) Rename "Barbarian" to "Rebel"? Seems simple enough

4) I had the same problem with the German/Barb flags (might have something to do with one of the Python functions)

5) I don't know about this, since I was playing as lesser belligerents, but in each game I played, neither I nor the major powers ever seemed to discover some of the more advanced techs. I kept playing as Italy until 1923 and never discovered the tech for Advanced Light Artillery. The major powers, on the other hand, never discovered the tech for Light Machine Guns, and none of us discovered the Armored Vehicles tech and this was more than 30-40 turns after the game had officially ended. And I even had many turns of peace to build libraries, universities, etc. and the AI didn't even have that... I'd like to know if anyone else had a similar issue.

I think a simple solution for this problem (if others are having it too) as well as the issue of the length of the game is simply to switch the amount of time passing per turn... I think measuring the game in weeks rather than months would be good since it would A) be more realistic and B) increase the number of turns from 60-ish to around 250 if you extend the time frame to the end of 1919.

I think that there should be certain conditions for breaking up the alliances. After all, Russia did withdraw from the war unilaterally in real life as a result of its revolution. (Which I think that Revolution needs to be represented more as well). And even Britain's initial entry would probably not have happened if Germany hadn't invaded Belgium. Britain getting involved in continental wars was the exception rather than the rule.

I actualy like the fact that peace treaties between the teams were possible. I mean, wars end when they end. It's better to have two exhausted parties come to a deal rather than forcing continuation of fighting purely because its coded that way. In fact, the peace never lasted in my games and I actually had thought that the code was forcing war to be redeclared every turn. I was glad, however, that you left out the Python code that would've bound Italy to one side or the other in the event of it declaring war on one of the belligerents. I had been assuming that I had freedom of diplomacy and it would've been a nasty surprise to discover otherwise.

In fact, I think the prospect of a peace treaty leaves open interesting possibilities, but that would probably be beyond the scope of this scenario. However, if it's not a problem, I'd like to make changes to it and add some new units and expand on the kind of events I discussed above.

I do like the scenario as a sort of fun "quick and dirty" experience, but I'd also be interested in seeing something a bit more expansive.

 

I've played a couple of turns as Italy so far, and I love the scenario so far. Managed to capture Trieste and Salzburg. Of course, I am playing on Chieftain.

 

I started as Germany and I took Brussels and Lodz at the beginning. A few turns later I took Rheims and Warsaw and even PARIS!!!

I play on noble and it is just to easy. The Ai is absolutly ineffective:
-The Brits are bombarding my coastal cities, with their supperior navy, but they don't send troops for invasion.
-The French and Russians are completly occupied with losing their cities.
-The Austrian take and lose the city of Nis almost every turn.

I really like the map and the scenario, but the Ai needs some training.

 

Great scenario really. I'd love to see a somewhat stronger Austro-Hungarian infantry, though. And maybe the Turk is somewhat too strong; they were the weak point of the Central Powers - and caused a true headache in Berlin by their loudicrous strategic decisions.

However, this does not really matter - for, as said, it is a great scenario.

 

Trudat to the last part there...
But re: your theory about the Turk: I disagree, I think the Austrians were the weak link. (nonetheless only Enver and Kemal Pasha were decent generals, whereas Jamal really did not cut it in his Sinai campaign)

First: Thanks so much Trip, you filled in what was really missing from C4
I think the thing about this scenario the people critiquing might notice and bear in mind to improve it:
1. Not many buildings, and, in some places, not all that infrastructure is placed, this was prob. due to Trip's time constraint. This creates the issue people mentioned of having to build up your whole infrastructure for most of 1916. This might be more justified if it were in weeks instead of months. Also gold.

2. There is room to add some new things, I'm thinking-Trenches,Mines,Zeppelins,Tanks in the last year, etc... as it stands, its impossible to finish the tech tree, and the AI doesn't get to its adv. inf. in before August '19.

3. Is there a difference between light and regular machine gun? They seem to both be icombat=18 with the same bonuses.


Again, I hope that the Germans and others working on Frontline1918 incorperate this map as a starting point for their mod, which is very ambitious, but has yet to post any public betas.

 

I would turn up the difficulty level a bit. It's true that the AI was not tailored with this kind of scenario in mind, but it can usually hold its own higher up. Britain typically lands quite a few units and France can hold out decently against a human Germany.

I tried to keep things pretty close to the main game so the AI wasn't completely lost (e.g. mines and Trenches). Zeppelins I didn't have any art for and didn't really do terribly much. Tanks are already in there, although the AIs might not be getting to them. There might have been some changes to the rest of Civ 4 which have slowed things down, since when I first made this scenario (many moons ago) everyone typically made it to the end before 1919.

You're right, the stats are almost identical, there's only one major difference... Light Machine Guns get to attack other units.

 

Oh I see.
Yes, Zeppelins are pretty useless... but it would be a no-brainer for there to be immobile naval mines in the Bremen/Kiel area. I doubt the AI could mess up the use of immobile units.
I haven't been able to get the tanks personally, or seen the AI get them yet.

Which do you think is better? more improvements and production/research/infrastructure? or more turns in which to build them up?

Also: I think the barbarian/german flag issue was solved when I changed Germany's colour to "GRAY" instead of Black.

I agree some of the resistance may be too much, more than in reality... but one way to perhaps get around that would be to have them spawn in more specific places, so that there aren't rebels outside london and Istanbul, but there are in Ireland and Arabia. Is this possible to implement, Trip?

 

Thanks for mod

Good work!

I try to rule my Motherland - Russia on Monarch level.
And I have some critics about...

First of all, the capital of Russia in that time was St. Petersbburg, no Moscow!
Secondary, in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan and may be some another cities was universitets. Moscow has University from 18 century!
And in year 1914 was not city Tallinn, was city Revel'

 

With regards to trenches: How about they are just reskinned Forts, and they do not lose their effectiveness against gunpowder units?
I realize it would sacrafice a bit of historical accuracy for the trenches to be built as the war starts, but considering that Forts are useless in modern_era games, it might be a good idea...

Does anyone have any trench skins lying around?
What about that mod: War of the Trenches?

 

Well, the zeppelins aren't really that useless when the skies are clear of enemy planes. The biplanes can't get anywhere near the kind of range a zeppelin would have. The Germans were, in fact, bombing Britain with zeppelins, and there was no way their biplanes were going to make it. Zeppelins could travel as much as 6500 km if need be. Zeppelins also carried a much higher payload than the biplanes could have. Zeppelins should have a very high probability of being shot down, but without enemy planes (which most of my games were spent without them) they can be rather effective. There perhaps should be an anti-aircraft gun unit that could be used to shoot down zeppelins as well as regular planes. All I know is that I want some opportunities for some strategic bombing.


Oh, another thing, playing as Italy, I spent the first X number of turns researching planes to be able to construct biplanes. Italy, in fact, were already using planes for military purposes by 1912. I think the tech for planes should be there already (at the very least the ability to build small scout planes) but you should be able to discover technologies to upgrade the planes to better models. Everybody had planes at the beginning of the war, but those planes became obsolete very very quickly.

Indeed. Hard for the AI to botch that. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to have several events that would trigger the laying of mines. First, there would be an event early on laying mines in the English channel and then more laying mines in the North Sea. The question is however: would it be fair or realistic to make them cover every square completely blocking in the German fleet? And if NOT, then why would the player do anything other than go around them?

I think there needs to be just more improvements at the outset. There should be more turns as well, and there should definitely be more wonders... I'd like it if Rome, for example, had the Vatican.

Yes, every city in the game has an ID, so events could be created to specifically cause uprisings around a particular city or set of cities. I will try to implement this if Trip would rather just leave the scenario as is (and gives his consent of course).

I think more needs to happen in the event of capturing particular cities. I mean, I think if you capture Paris and you're playing as Germany or one of the Central Powers, you should be able to force France's surrender and removal from the Entente. Similarly, I would like to make it so that Brussels/Belgium will be returned to the Belgian civilization but Belgium will become part of the Central Powers in order to simulate the establishment of a German puppet state of Belgium. Similarly, the Allies recapturing the city would return it to the Belgian civilization and then force them into the Entente camp.

After all, it's rather rare that territories conquered are actually annexed into the country proper rather than just made into a client state of some sort.


As for the trenches, it would be nice indeed to have the trademark part of the war represented. I don't know what the best way to go about implementing this would be, however. The AI certainly isn't going to build the trenches... it will have to be some kind of an event. But what to set as the criteria? I mean, the war was rather mobile in those first few weeks... but there was just too many men in too small a space and so the trenches were a virtually inevitable conclusion if one side or the other couldn't produce victory in those early weeks.

However, the prospect for scoring victory in the early fall WAS there. Of course, just because Germany would have knocked France out doesn't mean the others wouldn't have continued. Also, different conditions for a peace would be good as well (as I was discussing above). It might be interesting to have an events system so that in the event of a peace being formed with one party or the other being the victor, that the European map would necessarily change based on it. So I personally don't think that a peace treaty should be game over necessarily. Many times a peace is just round one of a larger fight. If Germany had scored a decisive victory and forced France to the negotiation table, they might have been back at it within a few years.

Of course, if you go that route, then it's not a World War I scenario as much as it is a 20th century scenario with World War I in it.

 

Addition about Russian Universities
- in Moscow was found in 1755
- in Kazan was found in 1804
- in Kharkow was found in 1805
- in Warsaw was found in 1816-1818 (Uni. status)
- in St. Petersburg was found in 1819
- in Kiew was found in 1834
- in Odessa was found in 1865 (Novorossiysky University)
- in Saratov was found in 1909

- in Vilna (Vilnus before 1939) Uni. was from 1579 to 1832 and was opened again in 1919.

Helsinki named as Helsingfors
Tallinn named as Reval

And here map of Europe to 1914 (~600k)

 

I think the real question at this point, given Trip's limited available time, is wether or not some of us are willing, with Trip'spermission, to take what he created and use it as the basis for an expanded and improved mod?

I'm willing to learn whatever skills are needed to be helpful.

 

I've already volunteered

 

Yeah, if you want to modify things feel free.

I excluded trenches on purpose because the AI wouldn't be able to use them. The same goes for certain events like "Take Paris and France is knocked out." I tried to minimize the number of places where the human could exploit the AI, though some people don't care as much about that as I do.

 

So was this an official Firaxis thingy, or were you just bein creative? Either way, its pretty hawt. I'ma play the one with jet planes first, but I've been stumped that there hasn't been an official wwI scenario in any civ I've ever owned.

The static nature of the majority of the combat, as well as the establishment of massive battle lines, and particularly the mindless grist mill of the front... kind of reminds me of my last game.

 

yea trenches would be historically accurate but the ai doesnt know how to use forts anyhow... and hmm.. i just assumed light machine gune and normal machine gun were the same thing i didnt know one could attack
taht would change my strategy a bit

and oh by the way never play as the united states i did and constant reinforcements make it easy and i realized i dont start off at war so it was like some weird thing where i was fighting with the central powers and invaded england and france oh yea i continued to play cause it was cool having reinforcements although extremely unfair, i will never play as US again

basic ottoman infantry is weak enough in the game, they dont even have alot and they have a horrible economy, what are you thinking their strength should be like ? 10 or somethin

 

Thanks for doing these.

 

Not only can they attack, but they can have the city attack promotion as well! Oh, man, you've been missing out!

Yeah, I figured the trenches would certainly be a problem for the AI, but why wouldn't events like "take paris and france is knocked out" work? Do you mean in the sense that the AI would not defend Paris or their capital city sufficiently for something so severe?

As for the trenches, I was just thinking that you could create an event that would cause the trenches to form along the entire French-German border automatically... but on the other hand, that won't do much good since if there isn't a unit on every single one of those tiles, they wouldn't make any sense. The only thing that might work is actually creating some kind of trench infantry units that would be immobile and would have to be killed in order to move past them.

I mean the trench situation developed for a reason. It wasn't just because that was the only way they knew how to fight. A player creates a good situation parallel to what in fact happened every time they move against an enemy city... large build up of units within a small area against a well-fortified defender. Neither defender nor attacker can hope to launch an attack and succeed.. and so they just sit basically.

So here's an idea... now, coding AI behavior in a scenario is much easier than doing it in the regular game because in a scenario, you can tell units to go to specific tiles since the map is always the same. So maybe the thing to do is use a "Campaign" system for the AI:

1. AI is told to send units to the border region between France and Germany
2. Units that enter the region are held there until the proper time
3. On a certain turn, the orders change and the AI units are driven forward en masse
4. If they successively take the objective, the border region is redefined for the next target

I just mulled over this as I was going down the block to get some coffee, so it's just a rough sketch idea

But for a World War I scenario, I think it would help simulate the nature of the war fairly well. Now, I don't suggest we make poor Trip code this complicated events system, but I think that it could help assure that the AI won't be steam-rollered by the human player. The "build up" time will put a lot of units in a small area making it difficult for the human player to easily brush passed defenders, and then the human player will be in real trouble when 10-30 units suddenly make a push across the border...

There's also one little idea that could actually put the human player at a disadvantage: Information...

I was thinking it might be interesting to start off every turn with a briefing of some kind for the player to read through. I'm planning on working on a Civil War scenario in the future and I want to do it with "newspapers" that the player can read and see what transpired in the last turn and what's going on in this turn.

It would be mostly "camp" (meaning that it's kinda fun but has no real effect on the game) but essentially, what you COULD do is make it so that both good and bad information will be given to the human player.



So for example, the AI is building up to attack Metz... but the briefings you get telling that they're actually going after Ypres... Now maybe 60-75% of the time the information is accurate but the player never knows when the reports will be wrong... so the player may end up shifting troops to Ypres and then the AI ends up attacking at Metz and overrunning the player's forces.

I realize that this zoomed in map of the Western Front above is not what the actual game map looks like, but I think it illustrates the point (I should go take a screenshot when I get home). So there are a number of different tools like that one could use to spread disinformation to throw off the human player.

Just some ideas... feel free to pick 'em apart

Cheers

 

I've been trying to stretch the number of turns but haven't yet been able to find the details for changing months to weeks. Anyone know how to make this change?