1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Great War

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Completed Scenarios' started by Sarevok, Jan 25, 2004.

?

What do you think of this scenario?

  1. Its Great! one of the best out there!

    257 vote(s)
    54.2%
  2. Its a good scenario

    119 vote(s)
    25.1%
  3. Its ok

    40 vote(s)
    8.4%
  4. I dont like it

    58 vote(s)
    12.2%
  1. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    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.
     
  2. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    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.
     
  3. aeldrik

    aeldrik from CIV1 to infinity

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    746
    Location:
    Northern Europe
    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...
     
  4. Rocoteh

    Rocoteh Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2002
    Messages:
    7,618
    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
     
  5. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    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.
     
  6. aeldrik

    aeldrik from CIV1 to infinity

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    746
    Location:
    Northern Europe
    @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)
     
  7. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    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.
     
  8. Volum

    Volum The Zapper

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    2,885
    Location:
    Norwegen
    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....:p
     
  9. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
  10. Kristian95

    Kristian95 Dr. Minion

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2003
    Messages:
    211
    Location:
    Sunny California
    @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 :)
     
  11. aeldrik

    aeldrik from CIV1 to infinity

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    746
    Location:
    Northern Europe
    @ 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...
     
  12. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    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.
     
  13. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    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.
     
  14. Kristian95

    Kristian95 Dr. Minion

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2003
    Messages:
    211
    Location:
    Sunny California
    @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) :)
     
  15. The Last Conformist

    The Last Conformist Irresistibly Attractive

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    27,779
    Location:
    Not on your side
    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.
     
  16. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    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. :)
     
  17. Rocoteh

    Rocoteh Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2002
    Messages:
    7,618
    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
     
  18. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
  19. Rocoteh

    Rocoteh Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2002
    Messages:
    7,618
    Sarevok,

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

    Best Regards

    Rocoteh
     
  20. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA

Share This Page