Suggestions

[vidimce]

After playing with Germany here are my suggestions:
- Tanks should cost a lot more to build, at least x 1.5 and probably even double then infantry.
- Factories and other buildings should cost more as well. An infantry unit cost more to produce then a factory.
- Machine guns ? Where did the machine gun go man. It was the main defensive weapon. One entrenched machine gun can kill up to hundreds of soldiers. I had absolutely no trouble conquering cities, didn't even have to use bombers to soften up the defense, no need.
- The ability to build a fortification in a city and or on land without destroying an improvement. Something like the Maginot line. Bunkers, trenches, natural obstacles played a big role in defense and slowing down an enemy offensive.

That's it for now.

I have to compliment you on the city positioning, demographics, choice of countries (still Id rather have Yugoslavia then west balkan), bombing mechanism and overall on the whole scenario. Well done mate.

 

[Dale]

Just a question, but what difficulty did you play on?

Germany is one of the easiest nations to play. I'd suggest trying Italy, or even France! For a tough fight, you could even have a go at Prince level China.

As for machine guns, the infantry sub-machine gun was the predominant MG of WW2. You're thinking of WW1 where stationary MG's were the norm.

 

[vidimce]

Well, I aint much of a player. I played on Prince with Germany but I do have great sense for realism. Even for the Germans it took more then a Panzer division to capture a city. Talking about artilery bombardment, Air bombing, close air support.

The stationary heavy machine guns were definitely used in WW2. In Bunkers, trenches, concealed and mounted on the windows of houses, rooftops, dug in hills, they are useful almost anywhere, whenever you defending, you're rather gonna be stationary equiped with a high-powered heavy machine gun that fires with the enemy coming towards you.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

Well, I aint much of a player. I played on Prince with Germany but I do have great sense for realism. Even for the Germans it took more then a Panzer division to capture a city. Talking about artilery bombardment, Air bombing, close air support.

The stationary heavy machine guns were definitely used in WW2. In Bunkers, trenches, concealed and mounted on the windows of houses, rooftops, dug in hills, they are useful almost anywhere, whenever you defending, you're rather gonna be stationary equiped with a high-powered heavy machine gun that fires with the enemy coming towards you.

wow, i imagine germany was pretty easy to win as. I played twice as russia, however, and got historically stomped!

 

[vidimce]

Yeah, Germany was easy, the only invasion i didn't manage to do in time was Norway cause they are in a remote place and its hard to get to them when 20 british cruisers roam around your waters.

On with the suggestions;

So far
-Tanks have to cost more to produce then infantry, common sense
-Heavy Machine gun unit to be added
-ability to build bunkers, trenches, fortifications
New
-How the hell is Soviet infantry more powerful then German ? ridicilous
The Soviets had major trouble in the Winter war vs Finland, that tells you how strong it was. The Soviet infantry only got better after operation Barbarosa, so that would mean advanced infantry in this scenario. And still they would be about equal with German infantry.
-Bitter winter does not affect a large enough and important enough area. It doesnt even affect the Moscow region, which is where it played out the most against the germans.

 

[MirvShag]

Well I haven't had a chance to play much but I started a 1936 run with germany.

It is a different game from civ4 so I have to disagree with adding a machine gun unit. Mainly because this is a divisional level game. I'm not sure what the creator intended but right now from a zoomed out and historical point of view this is divisional. And there were no divisional MG units.

A couple of things you could give infantry a city defense bonus as they could defeat tanks in the city but were easily overrun in the open fields. You could expand this even more by giving armor a penalty in forest etc etc....

Another thing you could do is to simulate mg support in a infantry division is make a mg a promotion and it adds defense against infantry.

Just my two cents, again I haven't played far yet but I do disagree (right now) on a divisional level mg unit.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

yeah, and the civ4 machine gun units can defeat tanks, and those caliber bullets cannot pierce WW2 armor.

 

[MirvShag]

Well its all on how you look at the units in the game. The MG unit in Civ4 could just represent a MG supported infantry division... but then again a MG supported infantry division could still attack where in civ4 they can only defend....

 

[vidimce]

Well it could be some sort of defense division mainly equipped with heavy machine guns. They did play a vital role in defending im sure you will all agree.

Also about the tank thing, I agree, basically only planes and tanks could really take care of these concealed MGs. So to represent that, Tanks can have a bonus vs Machine guns. That balances the fighting I reckon and its hist. accurate.

Anti-Tank infantry, PanzerFaust > Tank
Tank Destroyer, anti tank artilery (if its added in the future) > Tank
Tank > Infantry
Tank > Machine gun
Machine gun > Infantry
Infantry > units such as anti tank infantry, anti tank artilery, paratroopers.

P.S. Just noticed we've started couple of posts with 'Well'. Interesting =)

 

[vos]

Vidimce,

Interesting suggestions, I like the idea of more unit types. I've got some questions though.

I think you'd have to implement atk/def str ratings similar to FfH2 to make some of those units work.

For instance the tank destroyers were lightly armored and fast, so it really mattered who shot first with those and from where. I'd envision something like this. Something like atk 33 def 18 spd 4. Also the tank destroyers were horribly vulnerable to infantry, how would you account for that?

On the Machine Gun, are you talking about an emplacement, or having an infantry unit with machine guns? AFAIK there weren't many MG units in WWII that were mobile, individual units used to attack. There were lots of different units that had some machine guns attached to them, but I think that's already reflected by the power of the current infantry units. The only individual MG units I could think of would be of the pillbox/dug in defenses variety.
The other thing to consider is directionality. All the units in RtW at the macro level could realistically fight in any direction. This is not true of a machine gun emplacement/pillbox. There's no good way to figure that into the Civ 4 engine that I know of, and that's the limiting factor on a machine gun. How would you factor in that MG vs infantry with the MG facing vs MG vs infantry where the infantry is behind or flanking? What might be interesting would be a MG unit that could only be built in cities and defend or could only be paradroped to a tile, but that can't move or attack. Not that that's really accurate either, but could be more balanced. Sorta like player created maginot fortifications.

I think the Bazooka/PanzerFaust is a tricky unit also. 1 PF vs 1 Tank, I'd still favor the tank, and attack defend is vastly different too. Could you not consider the +25% vs armor upgrade for infantry the same as having a bazooka?

 

[vos]

My first suggestion would be two types of infantry units. I'm not sure I like that infantry can move as fast as the tank units.

Infantry with less hammer cost, less str, and more def bonus with a movement of 1.

Mechanized infantry, same stats as current advanced+ infantry. And change the graphic to that of a WWII truck in the middle with 1 infantry man on either side.

 

[vidimce]

The tank destroyers were effective vs armor, that's why they are called Tank Destroyers. And yes they were vulnerable against infantry which balances things even better. To account for that a Tank Destroyer would be considered an 'artilery' unit.
So infantry will have a bonus vs artilery which I think is accurate.

1000 infantry men against 50 artilery, Who's gonna win, infantry of coarse.

The machine gun Im refering to is the stationary heavy machine gun used in bunkers, trenches, dug in. And yes it would not be able to attack, purely defensive. It will be able to move of coarse, and if Dale adds the ability to build bunkers, placing a machine gun there would prove very useful indeed.

I don't think the bazooka is that powerful, it will be able to destroy earlier light tanks but will have trouble against later medium and heavy tanks.

Anyway, I dont think Dale gives a . .. .. .. . about our suggestions, hes doing his own thing. -.-

 

[Dale]

The tank destroyers were effective vs armor, that's why they are called Tank Destroyers. And yes they were vulnerable against infantry which balances things even better. To account for that a Tank Destroyer would be considered an 'artilery' unit.
So infantry will have a bonus vs artilery which I think is accurate.

1000 infantry men against 50 artilery, Who's gonna win, infantry of coarse.

The machine gun Im refering to is the stationary heavy machine gun used in bunkers, trenches, dug in. And yes it would not be able to attack, purely defensive. It will be able to move of coarse, and if Dale adds the ability to build bunkers, placing a machine gun there would prove very useful indeed.

I don't think the bazooka is that powerful, it will be able to destroy earlier light tanks but will have trouble against later medium and heavy tanks.

Anyway, I dont think Dale gives a . .. .. .. . about our suggestions, hes doing his own thing. -.-

Not true, I read all suggestions and consider each of them.

I'm not going to be adding any new units for add-on pack 1. There's already 146. But I'm open for convincing for add-on pack 2.

As for bunkers, workers can build forts, with defense bonuses for any unit stationed in them. That can account for emplaced guns (MG & heavy) without the need to confuse things more with new units.

The Maginot Forts are a specific unit that has one purpose. To represent the massive fortifications that France erected on the border after WW1. They do NOT represent the pillboxes, dug-in troops or even the Atlantic Wall.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

i think one of the greatest things for addon pack 1 will be some more individual graphics for the units (definately for the major nations)

 

[wotan321]

I've played lots of WW2 scenarios in the Civ series of games, and one mistake that is often made is to add too many units. I think its a trait of WW2 buffs to want to see their boundless fascination with detail reflected in the game...

Unique units for each civ is great, but every version of every tank, plane and ship used in the war is not great. It clutters up the menus while adding nothing to the fun of actual play. Besides, promotions will alter art in BtS, so let that represent all bazillion versions of the Ju-88 developed during the war. I probably will be the lone voice in saying this, because the people crazy about history are here asking for every unit conceptualized, while the folks interested in fun gameplay are off playing. Yes, some tweaking is legit, but you have to draw the line somewhere and EVERYONE will move the line to suit their preference. There are certain units and buildings I'd like to see, but I will add them myself.

I started on the 1936 Europe Open style and I have a few questions.

1. Are there random events? I have played quite a while and no events have occurred?
2. Are there quests? This would be a great mod for quests. FDR could develop some economic programs, von Papen could send some scientists to Tibet, stuff like that.
3. Are there Wonders to build?
4. Will there be corporations to build?
5. Does the UN or League of Nations ever show up?

Absolutely love this mod, thanks for all the hard work, and I am looking forward to its continued evolution. The many facets of BtS have yet to be explored.

 

[vidimce]

Its not like we are asking for every single different version of military units there was in ww2.

The basic ones are already there, light, medium, heavy tanks, I aint asking more.
Planes as well, Infantry also.
Tank Destroyers are missing, there even is a Tank Destroyer Tech in the game but not the unit.
About Heavy machine gun, id like to see em, but I aint that bothered if they dont show up.
Im not sure if the anti tank infantry is present, if it isnt i think it should be there as some opposition to armor.

That's about all the units I, ( or we) ask for so far. And of coarse unique graphics for existing ones, which Dale is already fixing with Add on 1.

At least for me, unique graphics for units in ww2 adds a lot to the flavour and amount of fun Im having.

Amount of diff unit graphics x scenario = lot of fun hehe

The one thing i hate most is that tanks cost less to produce then infantry. Its killing the game for me.
Just do tanks, u can build em faster and they are stronger too, plus after some experience they have the 25% vs gunpowder unit promotion. The only use of Infantry right now is defending cause they can get defensive bonuses, but Tanks kill em anyway. Dale you fixing this ?

 

[Kalimakhus]

I have just started playing the Pacific scenario as Japan. I've finished both china and its ally (can't remember the name). I snatched myself with difficulty as it was quite captivating. Well done guys it is sure fun to play.

However, I actually had some comments, fortunately vidimce has already mentioned them. In particular, I find his suggestions for balancing units against each other quite useful.

In my short experience with the scenario, I didn't need anything but bombers, and tanks to take the whole china in less than a year. Infantry were useless in taking cities so I used them to garrison captured cities so my tanks can move on.

Anyway, wonderful scenario, I actually beginning to like the units buttons. Turn flipping speed is amazing. Sound effects for bombarding cities are so realistic. I am looking forward to completing this scenario and moving to Europe, and I am waiting eagerly for your add on pack(s) (hopefully many)!

 

[andrewlt]

How's the Pacific? I played a little as a small civ to get a feel of how the events would unfold. I saw that the AI Japan is mowing down the AI China. I'm guessing that even with inferior units, the higher production is helping Japan zerg China? It seems counterintuitive as Japan is the less populous country.

I'm liking the suggestions about more unique units. I'm thinking the U.S. should have better marines/sea units and just normal infantry. And I don't think China's units in this period should be as good as other nations. Perhaps to make room for more unique units, you can take out the unique units that just have the same stats as the basic ones. There seemed to be quite a few of them when I browsed through.

 

[GarretSidzaka]

a agree, USA is not tough enough. coming in so late in the war, they should have a bit more punch (my opinion is only to the europe map, however)

 

[Josh1:9]

This is a very good mod. I noticed a few things bad about it though. One thing is that Poland who I'm using dosn't have access to horses.
Also the cavalry should have alot higher then 2 movement. I ended up worldbuilding movement on. And a few suggestions would be to add anti tank supported infantry, And to make the Russian infantry worse the late game.