sangeli
Major General
I think that after Germany captures a certain number of cities in Norway, Germany automatically gets the whole country because, otherwise, it takes them forever.
Suggestions
- Thread starter vidimce
- Start date
we could have it like with vichy france: when u capture major (or important key) cities
of given country - that country capitulate . Capitulation could be different: 1 full
capitulation with all its navy and army, 2 - gouverment capitulation where country
capitulates but army of that given country moves to nearest ally or friendly country,
continues fight or resistance and forms gouverment in exile.
of given country - that country capitulate . Capitulation could be different: 1 full
capitulation with all its navy and army, 2 - gouverment capitulation where country
capitulates but army of that given country moves to nearest ally or friendly country,
continues fight or resistance and forms gouverment in exile.
Tboy
Future world ruler
I'm wondering if there are any plans to simulate the German blockade of Britain and the Lend-Lease agreement between the US and UK. The latter could probably be introduced by coding the American AI to gift troops to the UK (Open Borders?). Not strictly necessary, but it would be cool to see the US buffing up its allies. The former would be much harder, since Civ doesn't do the idea of importing food that well, but it would nevertheless be good to see it in action.
Tboy
Future world ruler
Another idea, having read the above posts: puppet governments, which I believe Dom Pedro II is working on. This is historical, and not only in Vichy France - think the Quisling regime in Norway.
When a civ is conquered , or majority conquered, they become the vassal of the conquerer (possibly with a new leader, for historical accuracy+flavour). However, this would not be exactly the same as a normal vassal. Firstly, the master civ could simply seize control of a city if it wished - such as even Vichy France was occupied, or the Nazi's nuclear program in Norway. Secondly, partisans would pop up occasionally - the resistance forces. (Even better would be if allies of the dead civs could aid the partisans, with esp. points+gold, but that might be a bit too far)
When a civ is conquered , or majority conquered, they become the vassal of the conquerer (possibly with a new leader, for historical accuracy+flavour). However, this would not be exactly the same as a normal vassal. Firstly, the master civ could simply seize control of a city if it wished - such as even Vichy France was occupied, or the Nazi's nuclear program in Norway. Secondly, partisans would pop up occasionally - the resistance forces. (Even better would be if allies of the dead civs could aid the partisans, with esp. points+gold, but that might be a bit too far)
Ekmek
on steam: ekmek_e
Dale,
not sure if you caught it but I did finish my Mussolini leaderhead.
not sure if you caught it but I did finish my Mussolini leaderhead.
I have some suggestions about teh game:
1. Permanent alliances: when you join allies or axis, the AI is a little too generous. I was USSR, and i leeched off everyone ending up with +2500 Gold Per Turn and every resource possible. While I understand that lend lease was in effect, the US ended up get 0 gold per turn. They also gave me all of their conquerored terrorities, including mainland japan. Isn't this a little too generous, considering the fact that near the end of the was growing tensions between the Democracies and the Communists?
2. Speaking about the end of the war. The US took over Honshu (the main island), but not Hokkaido and the other smaller islands. The Japs fought on. Shouldn't they surrender at that their island is not theirs and their emperor is under captivity?
3. Invasion of Manchuria. When that came. I had hordes of Japs rush Vladivostok. The USSR is supposed to attack first, not the Japanese. I spent the first turn driving the Japanese from Siberia.
4. Events. I figured why dont i lose units in december 1941 for events in europe or in 1945? Just a thought.
1. Permanent alliances: when you join allies or axis, the AI is a little too generous. I was USSR, and i leeched off everyone ending up with +2500 Gold Per Turn and every resource possible. While I understand that lend lease was in effect, the US ended up get 0 gold per turn. They also gave me all of their conquerored terrorities, including mainland japan. Isn't this a little too generous, considering the fact that near the end of the was growing tensions between the Democracies and the Communists?
2. Speaking about the end of the war. The US took over Honshu (the main island), but not Hokkaido and the other smaller islands. The Japs fought on. Shouldn't they surrender at that their island is not theirs and their emperor is under captivity?
3. Invasion of Manchuria. When that came. I had hordes of Japs rush Vladivostok. The USSR is supposed to attack first, not the Japanese. I spent the first turn driving the Japanese from Siberia.
4. Events. I figured why dont i lose units in december 1941 for events in europe or in 1945? Just a thought.
sangeli
Major General
What scenarios did you play?
Pacific 1936- USSR, Accurate Historical Events
sangeli
Major General
Accurate historical events does not necessarily mean everything goes exactly like it does in real life. Instead, the gameplay is restricted to within the realm of realistic events within a war, but forcing the war to happen nonetheless. For example, it is definitely realistic that Japan attacks first at Vladivostok; it was within the realm of possibility. Also, the way Japan surrendered was not pre-determined: the US easily could have taken the other islands first and the result would have probably been the same.
However, some what you said is valid. The US should not give Japan to the USSR, but why should this matter? If the mod went into the cold war it would, but since you only objective is to beat the Japanese, once an allied force controls a territory, who cares which allied force controls it?
Also, there are two reasons why you don't lose units due to Europe events. First, the siberian troops were very isolated from the events in europe and units from the area were not called to fight the Germans because the distance was too far. Second, and the real reason, is that making the USSR lose units is just a complication that doesn't add anything to the game.
However, some what you said is valid. The US should not give Japan to the USSR, but why should this matter? If the mod went into the cold war it would, but since you only objective is to beat the Japanese, once an allied force controls a territory, who cares which allied force controls it?
Also, there are two reasons why you don't lose units due to Europe events. First, the siberian troops were very isolated from the events in europe and units from the area were not called to fight the Germans because the distance was too far. Second, and the real reason, is that making the USSR lose units is just a complication that doesn't add anything to the game.
Nope. You are absoultely wrong. Notice it's INVASION OF MANCHURIA. The Japanese in 1945 in Manchuria were in no position to resist a Soviet invasion, let alone mount an offensive.
I see your point, however, addressing this problem would enhance gameplay.
Your first reason is sooooo wrong. Without the Siberian troops, the Soviets wouldn't have had enough resources to mount a counterattack near Moscow. Plus, after the war in Europe was over, portions of the red army were sent to the east. The Europe connection should be also be associated with other countries, such as naval forces being sent from Britain to it's far east colonies, or the United States sending additional naval vessels/land units to Asia.
Joe Harker
1st in the Premiership!
Yeah, but what happens if the Japanese in the game are doing much better than they were in real live. All Accurate historical events means is that war is declared on actual dates, not who invades who. It's a "what if" mod, within what happened behind close doors with diplomats, not, everything has to be spot on what happened, cause that would be boring and we all know the result.
Chamboozer
Warlord
In that situation, its entirely possible for the end of the war to not make sense. If the US werent prepared to invade Japan, and if Iwo Jima hadn't been captured to allow the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the Japanese would most likely have not surrendered.
As for gameplay, you are right. Its a what-if situation, not preset very much.
And to whoever said the US would have invaded Japan, it would have taken longer than you think. A hurricane would have hit the US fleet on its way to Japan, people saw that after the war.
Not in my game. In my game, Operation Olympic (invasion of Japan) took only 3 turns to secure Honshu.
As for what-if, why don't we have join percentages? As an example, if Germany successfully invades Canada, the United States should instantly enter the war, or the Unites States (and UK and friends) enters when Japan actually launches a large scale attack on Pearl Harbor or somewhere else.
sangeli
Major General
Ok, why is Germany invading Canada? In order to invade Canada they would have to first conqour all of Britain, secure the seas, and the air for a land invasion. Plus, if Germany ever invaded Britain in the first place the US would declare war.
How could you ever attack pearl harbor without the US declaring war? In order to attack you need to declare war lol. However, if Britain does automatically declare war when Japan launches an attack against the US that should be fixed.
Going back to your first point, it shouldn't take 3 turns to secure that. But that is a larger problem with the mod: the AI being stupid and the imbalance of units. I might be mistaken, but Japanese infantry is the equivalent of regular infantry in the game: early has a strength of 5. That is one of the reason's I am making a mod based off of Dale's mod: the Blitzkrieg mod. However, I have chosen not to include the pacific because, IMO, the result of the war there was predetermined (Once Germany fell then the allies could send everything to the pacific and wipe the Japnanese clean off the map and since in the pacific scenario you have no control over the european camapaign, it makes the scenario worthless imo)
How could you ever attack pearl harbor without the US declaring war? In order to attack you need to declare war lol. However, if Britain does automatically declare war when Japan launches an attack against the US that should be fixed.
Going back to your first point, it shouldn't take 3 turns to secure that. But that is a larger problem with the mod: the AI being stupid and the imbalance of units. I might be mistaken, but Japanese infantry is the equivalent of regular infantry in the game: early has a strength of 5. That is one of the reason's I am making a mod based off of Dale's mod: the Blitzkrieg mod. However, I have chosen not to include the pacific because, IMO, the result of the war there was predetermined (Once Germany fell then the allies could send everything to the pacific and wipe the Japnanese clean off the map and since in the pacific scenario you have no control over the european camapaign, it makes the scenario worthless imo)
Where do you base your facts off Sangeli? Japan did not formally declare war on the United States on December 7, 1941, or Germany didn't bother to declare war on most of it's victims (ie. Poland, USSR)
Next, Regular infantry are for minors (Mongolia, Poland, etc.) until you get Modern Infantry (which is usually really late into the war). Also, usually Japan gets improved before their adventure in China.
Why didn't you include the Pacific? If Japan defeats the United States and Allies, the war in europe would be radically different.
danrh
Warlord
Get a life guys. lol
It's a game, a fun simulation of possible events leading to and during the war.
IT'S A WHAT-IF!!!!!
yeah it is
I do like sangeli's suggestion though that the US declares war on Germany if the UK is invaded (home isles only).
Dan
That would be a really big what-if. You cannot really say that the United States definitely enters the war on a German sea lion attempt. It would depend on Congress. It would probably be very close between isolationalists and war hawks. It should also be noted that there might be a small chance for the USSR to join the Allies on a German sea lion attempts as Stalin might fear that Germany gets too powerful as the elimination of Britain practically eliminates Germany's disadvantage of a two-front war.yeah it is
I do like sangeli's suggestion though that the US declares war on Germany if the UK is invaded (home isles only).
Dan
VeteranLurker
Warlord
Perhaps one could program the scenario to account for such what-if scenarios (e.g., taking USA/Germany and USA/UK relations into account, relative strengths of each country, trade relationships, forms of government, etc.) and then making some percentage-chance determination whenever the event would be triggered. And how many such what-if events might there be (Spanish Civil war outcome, Finland/USSR conflict, etc.)? Even so, the AI might still screw up whatever event was/wasn't triggered anyway.
That's what makes this scenario so ripe for multiplayer in Open Mode, I think. Wonder what would happen if Germany invaded England? Ask the USA and USSR players yourself. Maybe they're worried about what Japan will do and don't have any aid to give you. And what is in it for them? Maybe fighting-the-good-fight or fear-mongering that 'they are next if England falls' is enough to convince them -- and maybe it isn't.
But I do wonder about whether some alliances should be hard-coded (Germany/Italy; UK/France/Poland; UK/Canada/Australia) so that it isn't too much of a free-for-all. I also wonder just how many human players would be too many from a playability standpoint.
That's what makes this scenario so ripe for multiplayer in Open Mode, I think. Wonder what would happen if Germany invaded England? Ask the USA and USSR players yourself. Maybe they're worried about what Japan will do and don't have any aid to give you. And what is in it for them? Maybe fighting-the-good-fight or fear-mongering that 'they are next if England falls' is enough to convince them -- and maybe it isn't.
But I do wonder about whether some alliances should be hard-coded (Germany/Italy; UK/France/Poland; UK/Canada/Australia) so that it isn't too much of a free-for-all. I also wonder just how many human players would be too many from a playability standpoint.
sangeli
Major General
Well, I'm going to just sum this whole argument up with two words: who cares?
Similar threads
