The Great War

[Sarevok]

Originally posted by EmpireofVirtue
Oh God... Since when is it compulsory to give an explanation when we vote to a poll ?

The thing is that there's already a great WW1 scenario on this board and it's nice to see another one but I won't exult about it. The map is too large, and I'm not the kind of person who enjoys to have to do something else besides while waiting between turns. Please don't take it personally. You asked a question, I answer.

well, its nice to explain as it can relieve me from getting angry at someone. Id suggest you play this one, time between turns isnt bad nor is the ilitial load time. Sure, its not as fast as July 1914 is, but there are many... many... things this has that July 1914 does not. Try it, I think you might like it.

 

[Sarevok]

Originally posted by aeldrik
looking good from the Editor, but here a few things about the map:

1/ what happened to the Ardennes (Forest around Luxemburg)???
2/ The Northern regions of spain have a lot of forests, there maybe even should be grassland
3/ Germany has wine south of Frankfurt (Bergstrasse)
4/Madrid is too far North in Spain
5/Ypres might have been where the battles took place, but Oostende is the city around there
6/a little bit too much mining in Scandinavia!!!
7/ since this is the Conquest Version, where are the Marshes and volcanoes?
8/ think Lvov was still called Lemberg at that time
9/ How come the cities for Belgium and Netherlands are still in teh first age, you should set them to the industrial age (as well as all the others)
10/Constantinople should definitively be called Istanbul!!!
11/why did you take a map with polar Ice caps and place mountains on the edges, you should change it (tools to copy and paste maps, ask Phoenix)-....
12/ Cyprus has hills and mountains, it's not flat...
13/going by train from Corsica to Sardinia is not very realistic, or at least you should connect sicily to Italy in the same way...

I won't vote on it yet, waiting for the next version still and waiting to have a look at a game

1. The ardennes does need to be a bit expanded, I agree with that.
2. Northern spain is very mountainous.
3. Check
4. This map is a bit distoted, its right where it should be actually.
5. Ypres is more important for the scenario.
6. This is the 20th century now, the world isnt unccivilized.
7. Not in yet, the map was for PTW.
8. It was called Lvov
9. apparently you didnt download that massive package with all the graphics and units in it? Then you would know why.
10. It was Constantinope until after Turkey became a republic in 1923.
11. already mentioned, will be wiped out.
12. it does have some hills on it, ill get one on there.
13. makes sense, ill get that out.

As much as I like that comments have been given, Id like if you toned down a bit. It somewhat sounds like you think me and Rocoteh are fools or something. Thank you.

 

[aeldrik]

maybe the tone is something difficult to get right for people having to express themselves in a foreign language... sorry I tried to help...
maybe you shouldn't go complaining so much about people not fullfilling your opinion of what an answer to this thread should be...

 

[Rocoteh]

aeldrik,

Regarding your 13-list: Do you think this is important
when you evaluate TGW as an historical simulation?

I assume you do.

Then I ask: Why?

Best Regards

Rocoteh

 

[Sarevok]

I recognize that tone as well. I said before, calm down a little bit. Your tone is highly offensive. You did help by pointing out things for 1.1, just cut the offensive tone and insults and ill be more inclined to listen.

 

[aeldrik]

@Rocoteh: as you said, "Historical"
@ Sarevok: didn't know I insulted you... about the calming down, you might also consider it...

you are right about Konstantinople, but you should check Lemberg again (at least in 1904)

 

[Sarevok]

Hisorical accuracy crossed with fun playability is what we are trying to achieve. Personally I think we did a good job.

As far as myself toning down, I dont really need to. Defense of the project I have been working on for nearly half a year justifies it.

 

[Volum]

I to found that post kind of insulting, its like thats somebody everybody should know.....

And this scenario is DAMN great, anyone saying otherwise is something your really not allowed to say at CFC....

 

[Sarevok]

After the BETA test Volum, do you like the new version better?

 

[Kristian95]

@Sarevok: First of all, I've not yet tried your scenario, but downloaded it and I must admit it looks good Sure there're a few small things (like the leadername it wants me to take no matter which civ I chose, and a few minor flaws in the civilopedia) which could be "fixed" but nothing which affects gameplay

BUT: You ask people to tone down when they comment your scenario.... I have noticed the way _you_ speak to other ppl when you comment on _their_ scenarios.... I think you should remember how _you_ react before _you_ ask people to tone down!

I know you'll probably not be too happy about my comment, but what I mean to say is that your (at times quite reasonable) suggestions will be listened to far more (and be much more apprechiated) if you treat ppl with the same respect you demand from them.

Anyway, I don't want to end the msg sounding like an angry old goat, so once more I'd like you to know this scenario looks damned good and I look forward to "wasting a weekend" trying to conquer the entire map

 

[aeldrik]

@ Volum: you might wan't to check, but my first comment was a positive one on this scenario, but your opinion is really frightening, ever heard of things like "free opinion"...
I sure hope CFC never takes your philosophy too serious---- Anyone out there who has published a scenario should be able to accept a negative opinion and get along.... at least I do...

 

[Sarevok]

Originally posted by Kristian95
@Sarevok: First of all, I've not yet tried your scenario, but downloaded it and I must admit it looks good Sure there're a few small things (like the leadername it wants me to take no matter which civ I chose, and a few minor flaws in the civilopedia) which could be "fixed" but nothing which affects gameplay

BUT: You ask people to tone down when they comment your scenario.... I have noticed the way _you_ speak to other ppl when you comment on _their_ scenarios.... I think you should remember how _you_ react before _you_ ask people to tone down!

I know you'll probably not be too happy about my comment, but what I mean to say is that your (at times quite reasonable) suggestions will be listened to far more (and be much more apprechiated) if you treat ppl with the same respect you demand from them.

Anyway, I don't want to end the msg sounding like an angry old goat, so once more I'd like you to know this scenario looks damned good and I look forward to "wasting a weekend" trying to conquer the entire map

I hope you do like it, it tookmuch effort to do. Thats why I was angry about people voting negatively within 3 hours of release as no1 can even paly a decent game in that amount of time. That tells me the votes are either random voters or vendetta voters. I see your point though, but I was angry for a good reason.

 

[Sarevok]

Originally posted by aeldrik
@ Volum: you might wan't to check, but my first comment was a positive one on this scenario, but your opinion is really frightening, ever heard of things like "free opinion"...
I sure hope CFC never takes your philosophy too serious---- Anyone out there who has published a scenario should be able to accept a negative opinion and get along.... at least I do...

actually, I think the first comment is the one he was reffering to.

As far as free opinion is concerned, its a joke. But it also says that there are many of us that not only have worked a great deal on TGW, but also we want out work to be appreciated for what it is: A great scenario.

 

[Kristian95]

@Sarevok: I understand your anger/disappointment in ppl voting this fast...
But I wasn't refering to your attitude towards the vote, but more to your general way of dealing with ppls oppinions. As much regarding other peoples scenarios as when talking about your own scenario(s).
Anyway, I just hope you will treat ppl with the same respect you expect from them

Let it be said that no matter if I like a scenario or not, I always apprechiate the time and effort ppl use to construct the scenario, that is why I think it is important always to be polite, even if there're things you think should be changed in a major way

All said, I want to remind you that I do think it's a very nice scenario Thank you (and all others who spend alot of time to give us their scenarios)

 

[The Last Conformist]

Re: Lemberg/Lvov, my sources say Lemberg was the official name during WWI, which seems to make sense, since it was part of Austria. Lvov, apparently, only became official with the Soviet conquest - between the wars the place was Polish, and I assume the official name was the Polish Lwow.

I note El Ferrol is still spelt **Ferroi. **Gallivale (should be Gällivare) still persists, as do **Novorossilisk (should be Novorossiysk).

"Brusa" is "Bursa" nowadays - can't find when the name was changed.

Erivan isn't wrong, but the more common romanization Yerevan might be prefered.

I'm still skeptic to Tornia, but can't positively say it's wrong - I don't know Russian! The Swedish is Torneå and the Finnish Tornio, at any rate.

An "i" is lacking in Christiania, Norway.

Otherwise, most city-name typos appear to be fixed.

As for Rocoteh's point, no, I don't think this affects gameplay. But I've got a soft spot for historical/geographical fidelity, and it grates me to see an obvious typo in an otherwise excellent scen.

Some map issues that do affect gameplay:

Göteborg should be on the coast. I thought this was supposed to be fixed in the release version? As a side note, you might consider using the English name-form Gothenburg. You furriners will misproduce Göteborg horribly anyway!

Russia has acquired a stretch of Sweden's coast, incl the north-south RR, which is an issue. Reducing Vaasa's culture to 100 would fix this. BTW, I suspect the Swedish name Vasa was more used in those days, not that it matters much.

Similarly, the UK (Cyprus) has snatched a bit of Turkey's southern coast. Lowering Nicosia's culture to 10 fixes this (appart from the graphics issue that it will look like some beaches are British possessions).

I don't think either of those were in the BETAs; I certainly hope I would have catched them if they were.

A mysterious islet has turned up in the Atlantic NW of Brest. Looks like you or the map creater accidentally hit the mouse key when in "edit terrain" without noticing.

All this cause of Lemberg/Lwow/Lvov/Lviv. Cities shouldn't be allowed to have that many names ...

I'm still wondering 'bout Testin, btw.

Edit: Spelling and grammar.

 

[Sarevok]

ok, ill be sure to get all of this in for 1.1. There were a few things I knew I missed in production. Sorry about that, and thanks for putting this up.

 

[Rocoteh]

I really like the graphics in TGW.

Very good.

As I have said earlier it would be interesting
to know % of CFC: members who have ADSL.

I think it was a correct decision to make TGW a
big download.

In version 1.1 one could maybe consider to have
corps-sized army-type units.

Rocoteh

 

[Sarevok]

corps sized, how many units we thinking about?

 

[Rocoteh]

Sarevok,

4 units. The standard corps had 4 brigades
A German Active corps also had 160 Guns and 48
Machineguns.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

 

[Sarevok]

so mke it a 5 unit thing with 4 inf and 1 MG?