• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

World Wars I and II?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bastholm

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1
... I think the best thing in Civ 2 was the WW2 map!!! I dont now how many times I have played that map and I was sad when there was no one in Civ3!!

Does Civ4 need a WW2-Map and maybe WW1 map or another war-map??

Over and Out from Denmark....
 
sealman said:
(that is only because I don't like playing "real maps")

Hear hear! That just takes the fun out of exploration. They did mention a map editor for civ4, didnt they? I[m sure it won't be long until we're inundated with detailed map of every corner of the earth!
 
In of the previews (I'm too lazy to find out which), they said that they will have some scenarios included in the regular game. I'd say it’s pretty likely that WWII will be one of them :).
 
I think it has also been confirmed that Rhye is doing a mod for Civ IV already... I think it was supposed to ship with the game :).
 
Instead of a WWI or WWII scenarios, I'd prefer the units from those eras to emulate the roles of their real world counterparts in the grand campaign. That's all that's really needed, surely? You want to experience the strategy of how the wars were fought, not necessarily the terrain on which they were fought.
 
Although was a really important war I don't lie it because it is too one sided. How can Germany and Italy conquer all of Europe africa and half of asia. I'm not trying to undermind any one here and I know Japan was in the war to, but they didn't contribute troops to defending Germany. The Pacific WW2 is realistic and fair the only real opposition Japan has is America. Germany and Italy didn't have population nor military strong or numerous enough to literally conquer all of Europe. Not to mention that the Italian army wasn't filled with no Rambo and Arnold.
 
Germany could have won the war if Hitler hadn't decided to attack the USSR and hadn't allowed the Japanese to pull the US into the war. By "winning," I mean gaining and keeping control for many years of France, the UK, the Low Countries, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and maintaining vassal states in the Balkans and Spain. It's quite likely that resistance movements would have eventually toppled them, but it was overreaching with the USA and especially the USSR that sunk them.
 
Could have should have would have. We don't want to hear about what Hitler could have done. He was incompetent. He should have continued to slowly over take Europe then he would be smart. He should have used the "undesirables" as war pawns or modern slaves not burn them in cc, which cost germany billions of dollars in fuel and precsious gas which could have been used to crush the enemy. He should have send Nazi propoganda and Nazi youth camps to countries before he invaded them so he could already have foreigners worker for him. He should have barricaded of north Germany and focuesed on taking over resource rich countries in other parts of Europe. He should have had Spain take over the rest of France. He should have allied with a country like the USSR which was sympathetic to Hitlers plan (before he invaded them) instead of military weak Italy which he could have easily taken over himself. He should have supplied Japan with oil and other resources from austria and scandinavia so that they wouldn't have had to invade america. Hitler was a good speaker and propagandist but like mussolini he couldn't lead an army which lead to their demise. Italy was worse than Japan because Japan held its ground where as Italy lost to Canada something that a grade 5 canadian will tell you. This put Germany under pressure to defend Italy a country near its own size. This stretched out German forces and allowed the allies to be succesful out VE day and D day
 
Civilization is about changing history. That would be the point of a WWII scenario, to see if you can alter the events that have transpired.

Ghafhi said:
Italy was worse than Japan because Japan held its ground where as Italy lost to Canada something that a grade 5 canadian will tell you.

Considering how Canada had the fourth largest army and third largest navy at the end of the war...

And you obviously don't realize that the British and Americans also invaded Italy along with the Canadians.
 
apatheist said:
Germany could have won the war if Hitler hadn't decided to attack the USSR and hadn't allowed the Japanese to pull the US into the war. By "winning," I mean gaining and keeping control for many years of France, the UK, the Low Countries, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and maintaining vassal states in the Balkans and Spain. It's quite likely that resistance movements would have eventually toppled them, but it was overreaching with the USA and especially the USSR that sunk them.

Hitler could have achieved his immediate goals by simply not attacking Poland at that time. Lebensraum was a very long-term, dreamy sort of idea up until war broke out. For the immediate, Hitler was seeking to annex all territories containing signifigant numbers of Germans, and the object of attacking Poland was principally to secure the Danzig Corridor and the territories (eg Silesia) lost to Poland in the plebiscites after WW1. Given that Poland was not really neutral nor even hostile to Germany up until it was invaded - it even participated with Germany in the invasion of the Sudetenland in return for some territories there - it's not even all that inconceivable that Germany could have eventually come to some agreement regarding Silesia and the Danzig Corridor, particularly if German power and influence continued to progress uninterrupted. Hitler didn't believe Britain and France would actually declare war (particularly after Polish participation in the Sudetenland campaign!) - that was his real mistake, misjudging the West, and he was doomed from that point on.

Attacking Russia was a necessity. Stalin was reorganizing the military and industry of Russia to produce a vast war machine, and there was only one possible reason for that - he meant to bring communism to Europe. It wasn't even a secret, really. But, he was still a few years away from having it and in the process of reorganization, Russia was very very weak. Left alone, though, it would have certainly seized the opportunity to strike Germany from the rear at a most inopportune time, once some sort of Atlantic front had developed. The failure of the Luftwaffe to pacify British skies, simply made this all the more of a problem for Germany. What Russia eventually managed to field in WW2 was only a hastily assembled version of what it intended to assemble before WW2 - one can well imagine what unrestricted buildup would have produced by '44 or so. It was an attempt to nip a Leviathan in the bud, and as necessary as trying to get air superiority over Britain, but just like that campaign, ultimately beyond the power of Germany.
 
Originally posted by Ghafhi
Italy was worse than Japan because Japan held its ground where as Italy lost to Canada something that a grade 5 canadian will tell you.

Do you have something against Canadian people? And mind you, Canada had (and still does have) a very strong army, with excellent equipment and well-trained soldiers.
 
Ghahfi you have managed to offend me about 6 times with the posts on this page alone. You have the right to your opinion but use some tact and support what you are saying with some facts if you want people to agree with you.
 
That'd be pretty good advice, HD, but Ghafhi's pretty well insulated in his beliefs. He won't allow the facts to get in the way, and couldn't really care less about other cultures (or how people feel about them).
 
Ghafhi said:
Could have should have would have. We don't want to hear about what Hitler could have done. He was incompetent.

I'm actually of the opinion that, at least at first, Hitler did the best possible military manoever: he surrounded himself with brilliant military minds, laid out some clear objectives and kept his nose out of it. Later on in the war, when he started believing his own 'hype', he made the fatal flaw of trying to be something he wasn't: a military strategiest and commander

Ghafhi said:
He should have used the "undesirables" as war pawns or modern slaves not burn them in cc, which cost germany billions of dollars in fuel and precsious gas which could have been used to crush the enemy.

Gee, is energy efficiency really the only reason the holocaust was a mistake?

Ghafhi said:
He should have send Nazi propoganda and Nazi youth camps to countries before he invaded them so he could already have foreigners worker for him.

Why bother? He had fellow fascists and countless collaborators in every country he invaded. Lots of foreigners went to work for him.

Ghafhi said:
He should have barricaded of north Germany and focuesed on taking over resource rich countries in other parts of Europe.

In what other part of Europe? He had footholds in eastearn Europe, Scandanavia, France, the netherlands, sympathetic regimes in Italy, Spain and Switzerland, and was doing his best to defeat Britain ...what was he missing exactly?

Ghafhi said:
He should have had Spain take over the rest of France.

Which part? The part he annexed or the part that he had a puppet regime in?

Ghafhi said:
He should have allied with a country like the USSR which was sympathetic to Hitlers plan (before he invaded them) instead of military weak Italy which he could have easily taken over himself.

The whole point of his war was to punish france, then take on Russia to exapnd germany's borders. Even the non-agression pact was
a risky, yet necessary, compromise.

Ghafhi said:
He should have supplied Japan with oil and other resources from austria and scandinavia so that they wouldn't have had to invade america.

I believe he did. And I always thought that the attack on Pearl Harbour was more to assure Naval dominace of Japan in the Pacific, should america decide to join the war. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) there were any plans to invade the american mainland!

Back on topic, I look very much forward to playing a civ4 WWII scenario
 
Che Guava said:
I'm actually of the opinion that, at least at first, Hitler did the best possible military manoever: he surrounded himself with brilliant military minds, laid out some clear objectives and kept his nose out of it. Later on in the war, when he started believing his own 'hype', he made the fatal flaw of trying to be something he wasn't: a military strategiest and commander

That's pretty much it. Hitler had access to people good at their jobs. He just didn't let them do their jobs. The major disasters on the eastern front are the results of his interference, along with certain advanced weapons that could have prolonged the war or possibly forced a stalemate with Germany as the defacto ruler of the European continent (I'm thinking of the Me262 jet fighter and the Sturmgewehr 44 Assault Rifle here -- both could have been out a year earlier and had a serious impact on the Airwar and Eastern Front respectively).

Che Guava said:
Gee, is energy efficiency really the only reason the holocaust was a mistake?

:lol:

Ghafhi's alway's shown some difficulty sympathising with the plight of other people, precisely because they are OTHER people.

Che Guava said:
Why bother? He had fellow fascists and countless collaborators in every country he invaded. Lots of foreigners went to work for him.

Quite true.

Che Guava said:
In what other part of Europe? He had footholds in eastearn Europe, Scandanavia, France, the netherlands, sympathetic regimes in Italy, Spain and Switzerland, and was doing his best to defeat Britain ...what was he missing exactly?

The only areas of Europe Hitler's Germany did not have military access to were Portugal (on the other side of Spain), Spain (fascist, friendly, but neutral), Switzerland (neutral, and kept so for international reasons), Sweden (fascist friendly and defacto occupied being surrounded by German forces), and Turkey (hard to invade through mountains, would have triggered a war with the USSR anyway).

Che Guava said:
Which part? The part he annexed or the part that he had a puppet regime in?

Another excellent point, and this is ignoring the political reality that Spain and Germany had reached a political impasse to get Franco to sign on with the Axis. Germany very much wanted Spain in the war, but mainly so they could grab Gibraltar and close the Med off from the UK.

Che Guava said:
The whole point of his war was to punish france, then take on Russia to exapnd germany's borders. Even the non-agression pact was a risky, yet necessary, compromise.

Very true, and this is also avoiding the fact that both the USSR and Germany were political enemies at the time. Neither nation could trust the other, up to the treaty that divided Poland, both Russia and Germany repeatedly verbally attacked each other on the world stage. The M-R Pact was mainly one of convenience to designate "spheres of influence" -- Germany in Europe, Russia with Finland, the Baltics, and Turkey. Both nations knew war was inevitable. Stalin just thought Hitler would wait until after he'd knocked England out.

Che Guava said:
I believe he did. And I always thought that the attack on Pearl Harbour was more to assure Naval dominace of Japan in the Pacific, should america decide to join the war. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) there were any plans to invade the american mainland!

Germany also supplied blueprints for weapons types. The Japanese Ki-45 (I believe that's the right designation) is loosely based off of a set for the Bf-109, minor the better German engine. Japan was later given designs for the Me262 (the Kikka), and the Me163, though neither entered the war. Neither Japan nor Germany had plans for an invasion of the USA, though it's plausible they would have drafted such plans had the war gone so well in their favor. Germany had developed an "Amerika Bomber" that had the range for a one way trip to New York. Only useful if their Heavy Water plants had bore some success in developing nuclear weapons, and by the time it was ready for production, Germany's air industry was mainly devoted to interceptors to combat the combined British and American strategic bombing command. The two operational bombers built were instead designated as emergency transports to fly Hitler to Japan if the need should arise. They were destroyed on their airfield by American P-51s, I beleive. Beyond that, their most successful efforts at attacking the US came from the early days of the Battle of the Atlantic, where German submarines had nearly crippled American and British shipping up and down the Eastern Seaboard.

Japan did successfully bomb the US through a weird weapon -- high flying balloons. Japan launched some into the jet stream from the home islands, allowing them to come down in the American Northwest. Had these been more accurate, and loaded with the superbugs Japan was developing in Manchuria, they would have been far, far more effective. In addition to that, Japan had successfully developed a submarine capable of launching a limited number of aircraft. They had intended to use this submarine to launch an attack on the Panama canal, but by the time it was ready, the situation was too desperate -- US forces had already knocked out the bulk of the Japanese navy and US bombers were firebombing Tokyo.

Che Guava said:
Back on topic, I look very much forward to playing a civ4 WWII scenario

I'd like that as well as long as the units worked right.
 
@doronron

THanks for the extra info.I consider myself an amateur history buff (at least 20th century history), but doing a degree in science always makes sure I can't cram too many historical facts in my brain.

By the by, have you ever heard the song "Me262" by the Blue Oyster Cult? Quite possibly the best (if not only! :lol: ) WWII rock song ever composed. Definitely worth the download!
 
I think it would be great if those wars were included as scenarios with the game. I too really enjoyed the WW2 scenario in Civ II. It doesn't really matter if Hitler could have won the war in real life (and I think he might have, had he not attacked the USSR and gone for the Caspian oil fields he needed, instead going through Turkey to the Middle East, but of course such hypothetical questions will never be answered). All that matters is that it isn't impossible in the game. But even if the scenarios aren't included, it's no big deal, since users will make them eventually anyway.
 
ghafi, ghafi, ghafi..PLEASE get your facts straight from now on...you were close to right..but at the same time way off. Japan and germany did co-operate...quite abit actually...even the zero was a german designed aircraft. if hitler would have held of his operation barbarosa,(dont start a land war in asia) we might have our european conterparts speaking german
 
Che Guava said:
@doronron

THanks for the extra info.I consider myself an amateur history buff (at least 20th century history), but doing a degree in science always makes sure I can't cram too many historical facts in my brain.

By the by, have you ever heard the song "Me262" by the Blue Oyster Cult? Quite possibly the best (if not only! :lol: ) WWII rock song ever composed. Definitely worth the download!

Glad to help, Che. I'll have to go find that song. I haven't heard of it before. Thanks. :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom