WW II December 1941

[radoczy]

thx, I'll give it another try

Okay, I started the mod but I dont see the option for playing the game in my scenario list even though the mod shows up when loading mods

I'm close, I'll keep working at it

I got a problem, I load the mod and it loads up, but I'm taken to the scenario list and it aint there

I have the same problem. I load the mod, but I don't see the scenario. What am I doing wrong?

 

[skyfire]

Well that should not happen as i said before. I just gave it a test run, new download and install, and its working fine.
I think you have 2 folders, a folder in a folder, this happenend when you unpacked the folder.

example:
Beyond the Sword/Mods/WW II December 1941/WW II December 1941/and here the files with assets andprivate maps

You need to remove the darkened folder. I think that is what's wrong, not sure though

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

How do I know which version I am using?

I would suggest that you place the ModPath in the WorldBuilder Saves:
ModPath=MODs\WW II December 1941

 

[skyfire]

No not in worldbuildersaves. Thats got nothing to do with it. 1.61 is the latest version.

 

[Berzerker]

I have the same problem. I load the mod, but I don't see the scenario. What am I doing wrong?

Okay, I think what I did wrong was extract the files into two mod folders - there's one for civ 4 and another inside the Beyond the Sword folder. I deleted them and re-unzipped the file into the Beyond the Sword mods folder and everything works now. Loading times are quite lengthy though, my system is old and slow and I imagine the files are rather extensive. But it works, yay

Well that should not happen as i said before. I just gave it a test run, new download and install, and its working fine.
I think you have 2 folders, a folder in a folder, this happenend when you unpacked the folder.

example:
Beyond the Sword/Mods/WW II December 1941/WW II December 1941/and here the files with assets andprivate maps

You need to remove the darkened folder. I think that is what's wrong, not sure though

Thanks skyfire, I'm looking forward to spending a few hundred hours figuring this game out Your solution wasn't exactly what fixed my problem, but it did clue me in on what I did wrong. I did have the mod unzipped in two different folders - civ 4 and BTS - and the conflict was redirecting me back to my civ 4 scenario list, or something like that.

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

No not in worldbuildersaves. Thats got nothing to do with it.

My comment was not related with any previous comments. It was a suggestion not related with any previous comments. It is just that if the MOD is in the WBsave it saves a bit of time. Just a bit, I know. But time is money!

1.61 is the latest version.

I know... my question is how do I find out what is the version that I have in my own PC? I tried the 1960 scenario and did not work with my current installed MOD, so I guess that I have a different one. But I would like to know how can I find out which version I have for future reference. Thanks

 

[skyfire]

I know... my question is how do I find out what is the version that I have in my own PC? I tried the 1960 scenario and did not work with my current installed MOD, so I guess that I have a different one. But I would like to know how can I find out which version I have for future reference. Thanks

Aha, well you can't see wich version. But the download is the complete pack, so if you have the latest version installed, the correct scenarios come with it. There won't be any problems then.

To Berzerker: Nice you got it running! Maybe if you play it on low settings it will run a bit faster. Or buy a new computer . Late game turns take longer a you might get up to a point where it crashes
Have fun!

I promised a new version few weeks a go. I finishing up and getting it ready for download. It won't be savegame compatible.

 

[skyfire]

New version ready for download!

 

[RaTeedus]

Is there any chance you can correct the leader pictures? It's a very small gripe, but it is strange seeing Clark for WW2 era New Zealand.

 

[skyfire]

Yes i'll see what i can do. I don't have the correct files for it.

 

[Berzerker]

is there any way to disable nukes?

 

[skyfire]

Well there isn't an on and off switch if that is what you mean. The ai sucks with the use of nukes, so i minimized the nr you can have and made them expensive. Still i saw uk nuking africa i think.
If you know some xml you can turn the nr built to zero in CIV4UnitClassInfos.

 

[Berzerker]

thx again, I set to >0< the ICBM, IRBM, MRBM, and SRBM units so I'll see if that works. I played as Italy and the Brits started shredding me with nukes.

 

[skyfire]

Over 2000 downloads!!!!! That's nice!

Working on an update once again. Several changes like:
Blitzkrieg National wonder deleted, no more free training camps.
No blitzkrieg possible for healing units, so logistics and healing is harder.
Slower healing rates , again tougher logistics
Drafting causes less anger, just one instead of 3.

Not dramatic changes but just making it a bit harder because the ai just sucks.
What is fun though is playing PBEM game against yourself. If you play enough civs, you make enough mistakes so its not boring, you can make it harder on yourself than the ai could ever be.

 

[skyfire]

Update 1.63 ready! Enjoy!!

 

[Tasunke]

Over 2000 downloads!!!!! That's nice!

Working on an update once again. Several changes like:
Blitzkrieg National wonder deleted, no more free training camps.
No blitzkrieg possible for healing units, so logistics and healing is harder.
Slower healing rates , again tougher logistics
Drafting causes less anger, just one instead of 3.

Not dramatic changes but just making it a bit harder because the ai just sucks.
What is fun though is playing PBEM game against yourself. If you play enough civs, you make enough mistakes so its not boring, you can make it harder on yourself than the ai could ever be.

Hmm, do you have any opinion on Hotseat vs PBEM? especially if played by yourself?

More importantly however, I notice that the scenarios are locked into Diety difficulty level. Is there a particular reason for this? Also, possibly related, is there a way to make this scenario able to be played by multiplayer (make it multiplayer friendly), and would a Diety lock be necessary in this case as well? Are there any factions you might deem unplayable?

Lastly, I do have an interesting WW2 map I would like for you to take a look at. It is not quite as large as your map I think, but it is 199 tiles wide, which might be wider than yours. It is less "realistic" per se, in that it is more of an abstraction, but I think a level of abstraction is useful, if not wholly necessary, in Civ IV, for a more visceral and "realistic" experience. What I mean by this is that, you have the "long march to Moscow" with the European theatre being much larger and more vast ... I also have considered whether to set my scenario at the start of the Spanish Civil War (which is when things start to get interesting imho), or whether I should just make it classically 1939. I think you might have some interest in using my map as well.

Another suggestion that I have, which may more realistically be incorporated into your mod, is the use of Religion mechanic as Ideologies (similar to the Three Kingdoms Mod, or even Fall From Heaven). In Fall From Heaven, religion had a huge impact on the Civics you could use, the Units you could build, and some new buildings that you could build. Some units would abandon you if you switched out of that Civic or Religion (or both!). Additionally in FFH2 you had "Alignment" ... in this case I think Alignment could be Axis, Allies, and Comintern ... whereas in FFH2 it is Good, Neutral, and Evil. If you could incorporate Alignment (for Diplo modifiers), and Religions (as replacement of Politics Civic tree, and also impacting much of your Nation's military and economic metagame!) I think it would not only vastly improve the mod, but also provide a solid groundwork for my own mod in this vein. My primary reason for using FFH2 as a base is the Alignment System, and the Religion System advances, even the advanced Civics system (Units based upon Civic, Religion, or Alignment: Alignment based in part on Religion: Some civics unique to a particular religion: A plethora of religion specific buildings, wonders, units, and "spells"- can be used in different ways). To incorporate these systems in your mod, you could replace Politics with a new Collumn, whether Cultural, or perhaps Modernization (to allow China a pathway to modernize and actually able to field a modern military vs hordes of disorganized infantry, and to allow such a progression to be possible). My own proposed civic columns are Government, Cultural, Economy, Military, and Modernization level ... although I think you can add more columns if proficient in DLL, for my purposes 5 columns is sufficient.

Spoiler :

As the game can hold up to 7 religions, I've been able to separate relevant WW2 ideologies into 6 specific "religions". Divine Right (able to run Hereditary rule), Fascism (Axis), Ethnic Nationalism (Axis), Imperial Bushido (Axis), Marxism (ComIntern), and Capitalism (Allies). Most 'Divine Right' civs would be set to Allies alignment, but a few might be set to Axis (such as Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Iran, Iraq). I add Iran and Iraq because Britain was forced to occupy these nations as they were beginning to turn towards Germany for leadership. United States would not have any real access to Divine Right religion, blocking their unorthodox switch into Hereditary Rule. (although perhaps you've already hardcoded the AI not to do this?)

Back to the Governments, my initial hypothesis is to distill all options into 4 choices. Representation, Dictatorship, Hereditary Rule, and Oligarchy. Oligarchy would be the default response (available as well as HR with 1920s technology level). Well, eheh, technically we mean something akin to 1850s technology level, but I just mean the lowest possible tech used globally at 1920s, which can be somewhat low for nations such as China, obviously many western nations start an era ahead but I digress.

In any case, Hereditary is only for nations with access to that religion, and can only be run if they actually convert to and run this religion ... whereas they would lose access to beneficial Civics and units from Axis, Capitalism, and ComIntern. Fascism holy city would be Rome, and though any non Comintern nation can run its de jure civic "Modernity" (+10% hammer, +5% science) in Cultural Civic Column, one must at least learn the Fascist founding tech 'Modernity' which perhaps follows Modern Art, Modern Scientific Theory, or both. Meanwhile, to run the National Socialism economic civic, one must run state religion of 'Ethnic Nationalism', whose holy city is in Munich, Germany. and Imperial Bushido's holy city is in Kyoto, Japan. The latter gives access to 'Bushido Code' civic, which allows extra draftees and some War Weariness mitigation, either in the cultural or military civic column. Meanwhile the civic 'Racial Purity' would be only requiring Axis alignment, which works because Japan and Germany started the era with these beliefs (in certain political parties, not everyone granted), and Iran was Persian centric and Iraq was Arab centric.

However, obviously I had previously considered naming the German-centered religion to 'Nazism' or even just merging it with Fascism, but I believe that the former is too specific (german specific) and the latter is too broad. Granted, all or most nations at the time were de facto racially homogenous in law if not in populace, the only primary contraindicator of this being the openly multiethnic Austria-Hungarian empire. I would not consider the United States a contra indicator specifically because this was before the United States' civil rights era, and during this era (20s - 50s) US immigration law had recently been reformed to once again only allow European peoples. (occurred somewhere between 20 and 23 iirc). Most likely it was in response to the large number of Chinese immigrants that came in during the 19th century but I digress. However, only the legal systems of Germany and Japan were de jure ethnocentric, and arose independently tabula rasa. This latter reason is partly why I would separate Japan's ideology from Germanys in game mechanic form. For one, because Japan did not follow the National Socialist economic model of Germany, but also because the two ideologies were different enough to warrant a different ideology. (Obviously Germany's political ideology directly spread to Hungary and Romania, but these were clearly mirrors of the German NDSAP party). And thus we have Racial Purity not tied to religion, but instead solely to alignment, as eventually even Mussolini adopted some level of Racial Purity laws, even though he never fully adopted the National Socialist economic model. And this is why this economic model is tied directly to Nazism, abstracted out to the name ethnic nationalism, similar to how I abstracted out Stalinism into Marxism. For certainly I could name it Stalinism, or even Communism, but Communism is really more of an economic model, an impossibility really, and thus I don't like using this term, and obviously USA's red brigades, Maoist Red Guards, or Cambodian whatever's wouldn't share everything with the Soviet NKVD!!

Spoiler :

The naming convention I have chosen imho allows full range of motion both in the specific and in the abstract. For instance, anyone converted to Imperial Bushido would specifically worship the Japanese Emperor, and fight and die in his name. However! For any other ideology, the converted nation would follow the ideology within his or her lens, which may or may not support the assumptions of the nation that initially formulated the ideology. While many see Hitler as emulating Mussolini, in truth he only tried to emulate Mussolini's rise to power, and in doing so he even failed in this, as the Beer Hall Putsch had nothing of the same effect as the March on Rome. So while Fascism came to power by a show of force, National Socialism came to power by the will of the people. Also, both ideologies came about in their infancies within the heads of their leaders immediately after WWI. Naturally of course the tenets of the ideology expanded, grew, and evolved as membership grew and the movement evolved, but the roots of the divergence between the two movements clearly came about from the 'lessons' learned by each individual during their own experiences in the war. For Hitler, it was a community of the German People, bound in blood. For Mussolini it was a futuristic Roman Empire based in science. Unfortunately for Mussolini, in no real way was any part of his vision realized, especially so in the campaigns of the Italian soldiers. I wonder though why that is. More research may be needed, but we have likely all but ran out of time for interviewing veterans of WWII. Perhaps discovering their memoirs ... but alas. My own hypothesis is that the Italian military command was entirely nepotistic, in perhaps Land, Air, and Sea. That is, nepotistic and party controlled. Whereas in Nazi Germany, only the Luftwaffe was nepotistic and party controlled, and thus playing a part in the loss of the Battle for Britain. However the rest of the German military, notably the German Army, had a huge preexisting command structure based in the Prussian model, that was only slightly messed with by Hitler's belligerent micromanagement. In fact, leaving aside the distractions of the troublesome adventures in Yugoslavia and Greece, Hitler's own micromanagement caused a large number of delays and disorganization in elements of the putsch into Russia, both before and during the unveiling of Operation Barbarossa. While it could of course have been allied propaganda, my own pet theory is that it is true that Hitler was taking Meth at the advice of a close medical advisor, seeing as (at least supposedly) elements of the Wehrmacht were doing the same. Thus, my theory follows that Hitler, perhaps in part due to his dismay at the loss of Operation Sea Lion, killed in its infancy so to speak, he sought to increase his own opinions on the day to day details of his next grandiose operation, that of Barbarossa. However perhaps he had forgotten that it was due to his nepotistic choices for Luftwaffe Command, and his own personal demands on the Luftwaffe, that lead to loss of the Battle of Britain. And this ties into his Meth use. The Meth was giving his mind plenty of speed to work with, but also a deadly loss in the grounding of reality. In meddling with elements of Barbarossa he was in effect losing dollars to save pennies. Losing much in unit cohesion for very little if any gain in available men and material at particular spots in the front, or during a march. Thus his Meth use not only increased his frequency of his meddling, but also decreased any utility that his meddling might could have provided. In comparison, the collaborative and level headed nature of United States command, even the competitiveness between the Generals, enabled the Americans to win battle after battle, even against the technologically superior Japanese (at a point in the War where the Japanese did indeed have the better weapons). In fact, one might could say that it was only after the invention of the Atomic Bomb that the American high command "forgot how to war." Although perhaps one could say they were simply having to re-invent their entire paradigm, as everyone was. I can prove this by looking at the Korean War. Patton and McArthur wanted war with the Soviets. Patton was killed (or died in an accident) and McArthur was eventually fired. Granted, this was before relations between America and the Soviets truly began to cool, and it was during a period of time where America and the Soviets were still closely tied in a number of projects, one of which being the establishment of globally recognized Israeli sovereignty in the territories of Palestine. Therefore, not only was there the pressure of avoiding nuclear war, but also of avoiding 'pissing off the soviets' and allowing relations between the two superpowers to completely degrade. But remember, the Korean War was specifically before it was known that the Soviets had nuclear capabilities, and was likely before they actually had a working weapons system. And McArthur, while willing to go to war with the Soviets, was primarily interested in Nuking China in retaliation for their entry into the Korean Conflict. And that is another problem, American refusal to declare war after WW2, instead relying on the terminology of global conflict. Police Action. The United States of America has never lost a war after WW2 because the United States has never fought a war after WW2. Yet any conflicts the US has been involved in since WW2 have only been acts of appeasement and policing. Back to the Korean conflict. There were a few ways US could have won. Granted one was using nukes on the Chinese, or at least Chinese and Korean military positions working for the North Koreans ... but they were not used because nukes would leave a bad precedent, even before other powers gained nukes of their own. However, the primary reason it would leave a bad precedent was because we did not fully commit to a war, but merely committed to a "limited policing action" but oh with bullets, and tanks. In fact, there was a way, multiple ways, that the war could have been won WITHOUT nukes, but instead with only a direct US commitment to open warfare. All this would have required was the opening of a massive Amphibious invasion off the coast near Pyonyang. Perhaps it would not have been "as simple as all of that" but you could use a majority force to occupy the Koreans on the Parallel, meanwhile a massive but smaller force goes directly for the heart of the enemy. Some however were worried that a full naval invasion on North Korean soil would overly upset the Soviets, and that it would be best to only be seen as supporting the South Koreans in South Korean military campaigns and initiatives. Certainly the deception has its uses, but the United States would have been far more successful to be willing to call a spade a spade, and to take to actions done in their entire, rather than politically hamstrung half actions, as could be seen in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.

I do digress however. My point is, is that the Prussian elements of the German army *began* the conflict with the best and most efficient command structure, but it was the United States that ended the war with the best command structure. This is because the collaborative nature of the American Command system (and multinational North Atlantic Operations in general, but specifically the Americans, completely divergent from any semblance of royalty or divinely appointed social standing) allowed for the Americans to learn more quickly from their mistakes, and that they could run 'wargames' and come up with brand new solutions. The Germans HAD been able to use this capability to some extent, but most of their war gaming took place before the war. As the war progressed, Hitler's interference slowed the German High Command to a desolate crawl, starved for any sort of innovation. Therefore in Game Mechanics terms, Nazi Germany started out with the most promotions, the most great generals, the best generals .... but the Americans were able to gain new promotions much more quickly. Even with all of that however, I do not think that anyone would disagree that without the massive military might of the Soviet Empire (or eh, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, heh), any sort of "D-Day" would have been absolutely impossible, leading to a deadly new form of Stale mate and ... well, that is a topic of much deliberation. Whether it would have been a cold war or a hot one. Or whether a lasting peace could have been reached after such a stalemate became obvious. Hmm. It is possible that the United States would simply occupy North Africa and the Middle East, if the Soviets and Britain either peaced out, capitulated, or fell. This is of course assuming that the US doesn't simply focus on Japanese revenge, and completely ignoring the European situation without the beckoning of key European allies. Perhaps De Gualle could have persuaded Roosevelt, but I doubt he could have persuaded the US senate without the support of Churchill or a free Britain, even with Pearl Harbor and Hitler's Declaration of War against America. If Roosevelt was indeed able to move the Americans to act in the European theatre, however, without British Support it would likely lead to an extra decade of conflict in the Middle East between America vs the Axis, as well as a very interesting naval standoff in the Atlantic, with high naval losses on both sides. If the Soviets were still in the game, but not the British, then perhaps a D-Day of a sort might be attempted in southern France. However I have little doubt that the success of such an invasion would hinge not only on Italy coming to a separate peace, but also on if American lend Lease materials could continue to reach the soviets without the protection of British Convoys. And one could only hope that the British Navy would not re-enter the war on the side of Germany, or else the Nazi invasion of America would have become a real possibility, especially if the Soviets fell, or were at least brought to a standstill (and possible ceasefire) while the Americans were deliberating a MUCH more risky D-Day that would be facing Germans MUCH better organized, without the constant bombing raids on their factories from airbases in England.

I've also toyed with the idea of adding "Unconditional Surrender" to the Military Civic Collumn (Capitalism specific). Which would require one to be at war to adopt, but gives perhaps a massive boost to military production. I do however have mixed feelings about implementing the mechanic of "disallows diplomacy with the enemy." On the one hand, I think this perfectly surmises the Allies' view and actions towards Germany, but Japan's pre-occupation surrender puts this into something of a conundrum. The only way to justify this addition would be if USA had moved out of this civic before the Japanese declaration of defeat, which wouldn't be impossible from a mechanics point of view b/c USA already had an overwhelming military presence by the end of the war, so one could surmise that sometime after VE day, and before Nagasaki (perhaps even between Hiroshima and Nagasaki) USA simply switched civics to allow a conditional surrender.

Heh, perhaps it switched from "Unconditional Surrender" to "Global Interventionism" in part due to unlocking the civic from a brand new late-war era tech

I hope none of this gave offense, I am just trying to approach my version of WW2 mod-ism from a sort of abstract and visceral approach to reality, in the attempt of capturing the psychological reality more perfectly, even if it loses some precision in the process, perhaps it may unveil new truths to the horrors of WW2. I had considered adding more, but in part due to my limit of coding skills, and in part due to keeping some barriers for the sake of polite company, I try to stay as much as possible in the realm of abstractions, only going to the level that the game can represent, in some cases only going so far as terminology and civic attributes (which, as all civics, are gross abstractions). Hmm, perhaps one way to explain it would be to in part capture the mythos of WW2, as opposed to only the facts.

In any case, I hope that you at least look at my WW2-esque map if nothing else, although if you want to listen to any of my other suggestions, would certainly help me to create my own vision I think!


(( I would certainly like advice on how to change Good/ Neutral/ Evil to Axis/Allies/ComIntern )), and how to change Neutral from boring Gray to allies Blue!!

- to specify, Divine Right would be the only religion not to 'force' alignment, in part because it was from a previous era and had not much impact ideologically in the WW2, but also because it is an abstraction of many religions and divine right systems from across the globe.

Spoiler :

'Imperial Bushido' could be seen as a form of WW2 era divine right, but as it was specifically the only form of divine right to impact the war, and because it was specifically tied to Axis powers, it has the privilege of getting its own religion. One could of course justify merging the three Axis religions (that each force Axis alignment) into one 'Fascism' religion, but I have already explained above partly why I chose the terms I did, but also because the macro economics, fighting styles, and zeitgeist of the Axis Powers were different enough that I believed the religion specific Units, Buildings, and Civics would diverge enough to justify giving them their own specific religions as opposed to converging it all into one particular religion. I do agree that perhaps Maoism and Stalinism are different enough to also deserve their own religions, and by all means any mod-modders may feel free to insert this differentiation as there is indeed an empty 7th religion slot as of now in the design doc. However because I switched the Marxist religion name from Stalinism to Marxism, and because the Soviets and Maoists did act similarly enough in the war, and because the Maoists had no chance to differentiate much aside from as one small sect of the United Chinese Front I saw no need, and besides, having a religion called Marxism began to grow on me. Furthermore, because all the 'communist' governments do have Marxism as their ideological source I felt it was appropriate. Also incidentally, you could achieve Communism without Marxism if it was achieved outside of the means of Class Struggle over the means of production, or simply didn't involve class struggle paradigm at all. Which is another reason why I was loathe to insert to term Communism and felt Marxism to be a more true and accurate depiction, because Marxism is what these nations practice, perhaps in the pursuit of Communism, perhaps not, these are Marxist Socialist Soviet Republics, all of them. And that was (and is) the current zeitgeist for achieving human Communism. Truly however, true Communism would likely be something strictly for AI beings, while leaving humans to their capitalism, Marxism, and other polities. That is because true Communism seems only possible in a society of AI driven vonn neuman probes, and even then its not really Communism, but more of a libertarian society, barely hierarchical, only acting collectively as a response to visceral human need (as in, creating human colony ships, establishing human colonies, and fighting against belligerent Xenos) and in all other effects simply being beyond cash, beyond currency. In my opinion Marxism, and it's tendency to try and bring down the establishment, punish the rich, punish those that attempt to collect resources, is highly counterproductive and outdated, which is why it disheartens me that so many "Communists" are going down a dark and Marxist path. Even in today's era. The only future for Communism would be a form of post-currency Libertarianism, however I have my doubts that this is attainable for a biological species. And it is certain that any form of Marxism, can only lead to failure and misery for the common man, and can only be seen as the enemy of the working man. Marxism is the work of the close minded pseudo-intellectual that took econ 101 and thought Das Kapital by Karl Marx had a few interesting points, but never really looked into the hypocrisy or impossibility of Hegel's vision. And in truth there are many other polities more beneficial for the working class man, as, so far as I can see, the lot of the average working member of the majority is no less detracted from by Marxism than any other political system, no matter its form. Perhaps there are political systems equally evil for the common working man, but I can think of nothing that does more evil to this particular group of people than Marxism. Marxism is not the religion of life and creation, but instead is the religion of revenge, destruction, ripping, tearing, and rending.

 

[Tasunke]

Breaking through the Marginot Line like a Bause. Thanks to Artillery, Aerial Bombardment, and very high level units. I'm wondering if it was your intention to allow for this action as early as January 1940? Still, excellent work on the mod. Could, however, perhaps make Marginot Line a unique improvement, also to add one to the empty French tile this Marginot Improvement and some Machine Guns ... with this improvement being perhaps +200% defense? I know that when I conquered the current tile defense was 100%, but some of that had to have been from the hill and forest

Also I am wondering, did you remove the penalty from crossing a river? Or did u make it smaller? (or perhaps it is due to some promotion you added...) but anyways I have not seen a huge penalty, or much difference in odds, for crossing a river. Admittedly this is from only a few turns of play, and Anecdotal, but iirc France actually had a larger land military than Germany at the beginning of the conflict. Perhaps increasing the static defenses for both sides would be the solution.

In addition, have you considered adding "Military Access" as something separate from Open Borders, something which requires Open Borders, and having a much higher acceptance threshold? The simple act of opening borders can lead to several ahistorical solutions to, for instance, the Marginot line, that I would have taken advantage of had the bombardment not been so successful.

I've always thought Siege units were completely broken in the original Road to War, and I wonder if you agree that any elements from the Road to War combat paradigm (whether ranged combat or otherwise), if they had been incorporated into this mod, may have made a determined siege assault too useful for the human (or AI) player? It is good that Air units can no longer kill units outright, but erm ... it only took 4 artillery and 10 planes to break through at one point in the Marginot ...

 

[skyfire]

Tasunke, thank you for your feedback. You have a lot of questions, i'll answer them, but not all at once haha.

Also I am wondering, did you remove the penalty from crossing a river? Or did u make it smaller? (or perhaps it is due to some promotion you added...) but anyways I have not seen a huge penalty, or much difference in odds, for crossing a river. Admittedly this is from only a few turns of play, and Anecdotal, but iirc France actually had a larger land military than Germany at the beginning of the conflict. Perhaps increasing the static defenses for both sides would be the solution.

I have increased the peanalty for rivers, but a few units already posess the river crossing promotion, (engineers brigade promotion)
As for the French units, the AI ceeps deleting them, even with tons of money, expierenced units, promotions, etc. The AI weighs cost over savety.
What helps is playing the PBEM game, than you can control it. Hotseat crashes the game or just leaves you with one civ after one whole turn.

As for some other questions , for example, open borders and militairy acces; my modding skills don't go there. Most is xml changes i've done here.

Well a lot of ideas, i'll get back to you on some of them. Looking forward to see your map!

 

[Tasunke]

Here is worldbuilder save of the Map. I've cut out large parts of Scandinavia, South America, and Africa ... I don't think it hurts the game any (except less 'Winter War' between Soviets and Finland). Also cut off most of Australia, but I think its still enough left on to be relevant. Everything else in Europe is considerably bigger. UK and France are a bit bigger, but mainly it is Lowlands and Germany that has massively increased in size. Larger Germany and smaller chokepoint north of Denmark means building up a "Fortress Germany" can become a reality once Denmark and lowlands are captured. In the Huge Earth, there were 2 lowlands cities, in my map (which lets call the Landing Strip, because it is very long and thin) there are 6 lowlands cities (3 for netherlands and 3 for Belgium/Luxembourg).

My USA is tilted to save room (otherwise the map would have to be taller, and thus have hundreds more tiles overall, as 1 extra height = 200 extra tiles. As you can see, about 1/3 of the map is Pacific Ocean, as intended. I have considered making the Atlantic a bit wider as well, but I think it is less necessary, and also the real Pacific is much larger than the Atlantic. The widest stretch of Pacific is around 9000 miles wide, while the skinniest Atlantic segment is around 1700 miles wide. However at the latitutes relevant for this game, the Pacific is only around 40% wider ... 3500 miles from DC to Lisbon, and 5000 miles from San Fran to Tokyo.

And yet, in my eagerness to get the Pacific Ocean perfectly correct (which I did) I ended up making my Pacific Ocean 58 tiles wide (between San Fran and Tokyo), while I have only 16 tiles between closest USA shore and Lisbon, for a body of water 3.6x larger than the Atlantic ... and while its true that the Pacific as a whole is 3-5 times larger than the Atlantic, at the Tokyo latitude it is only 1.4x larger ... so to stick by that calculus I would need to make the atlantic almost 40 tiles wide (at the USA to Lisbon measurement). However to account for the shift in perspective and other considerations, a ratio of 2x or 2.4x the size would be more appropriate.

Perhaps at minimum the Atlantic Ocean should be 6 tiles wider, at 22 tiles wide (not talking about Canada to France or Canada to UK, just USA to Spain)... really anything in the range of 22 tiles to 25 tiles would be fine for our purposes. But a lot of the reasoning going into Ocean Width has more to do with Bomber Range and Naval speeds than it does to do with Earth Mapping. Still, the most accurate element in my map is the Pacific Ocean, and I tilted the USA so that I would not have to sacrifice North American Landmass in order to get the correct distances I wanted.

It all comes down to this ... the two defining combats of the war ... Soviet/German land war, and USA/Japanese naval war. If you don't get those two right, its not really a WW2 game, yeh? Also, the way I have the land set up, USA, Germany, Soviets will almost always be major powers, with Britain and Japan being significant secondary powers. Meanwhile Japan's invasion of China, and the North African campaign, are interesting events, even if they play a secondary role. In my map France wasn't made "big" enough to really threaten Germany, but it is big enough to work as a D-day level base of operations, if the Allies wanted to invade Fortress Germany of course. Many say that France fell because of its penny packet usage of tanks, or because most of its army was still manning the Marginot line, but one of the main reasons was because of a lack of Aerial coordination between the British and the French. And a lack of cooperation between the Allied Airforces and their Ground Troops .. which led to a very ineffective Ground Attack campaign on the Allied side, and an extremely effective Ground Attack campaign on the German side.

In my version there are 24 tiles of clear, open, flat land between Berlin and Moscow ... it is the "great plain" which causes so much mobile warfare in this region, and partly why Poland became so adept at mounted warfare. This corridor doesn't exist in the full/huge version, instead being replaced by a massive forest. There is however a really cool open space around Kursk (at least in the 1943 edition), but it doesn't extend all the way between Berlin and Moscow, and also you have 17 tiles between, which is quite good really, just too many forests in Poland. Technically the corridor might only extend as far as Minsk or Smolensk (from Berlin) in real life, but I did add tundra/ ice past Minsk in order to "slow down" troops (assuming a mod where snow and desert cost extra movement points without proper equipment or training). Alas, I cannot model the heavy muds of spring and fall, or the actual change in weather between mild and snow (across the whole theater of war), but establishing the open corridor itself, and covering Moscow in Snow, is a good compromise I think.

Our Middle Easts are about the same size, except I cut out most of the excess between Tibet and Iran. However, I did create an ocean corridor between Balkans and Turkey, so German units cannot simply walk into India, at least without going through Soviet Caucasus first.

I did make North Africa much more interesting however, especially to make El Alamein a chokepoint, but only one of several. Very interesting desertified terrain for Montgomery and the Desert Fox to face off within. Almost resembles the large sand dunes and desert cliffs which the generals had to navigate during the real war.

Our Chinas are also similar in size, and our USAs seem to be as well, except mine is tilted of course, and my USA is a tad smaller than my continental Europe, while your continental Europe is a bit smaller than your USA.

Your Atlantic Ocean is around 30 tiles wide using my measurement system, which is very respectable. As I've said earlier I've considered increasing mine from the meagre 16 to a more respectable 22-25, exact numbers depending on several variables.

However, your midway is not "midway" between San Francisco and Tokyo, as the real life Midway in fact IS Your midway is 22 tiles from USA and 13 tiles from Japan, while my Midway is 29 tiles from the USA and 28 tiles from Japan. I also have 11 tiles between USA and Hawaii, 13 tiles between Wake and Guam, and 7 tiles between Guam and Iwo Jima. As I said, I put a lot of effort into making a Perfect Pacific Ocean .... I created a system where Dive Bombers had 4-6 range, Fighters had 8-12 range, Tactical Bombers had 14-16 Range, and Strategic Bombers had 18+ range ... and ofc that was before you get into Jet Fighters and Jet Bombers, but I really wanted to limit the number of Jet Aircraft if I could ... once you get into the 20+ range, you can't increase much farther really, as only something like a B-50 superfortress would have the equivalent of 30 tiles unassisted range and 60 tiles ferried range (with in-flight fueling). Imho that would mean that the B-50 should stick to 30 range, with rebasing to a closer base being Civ IV equivalent of in-flight refueling imho .... drop tanks are one thing, but outside interference implies you have an airbase closer, and the only reason you are refueling is because of schedulling/logistical conflicts, which hey, don't happen in Civ IV.

Now, two things about my Map which might seem odd are American city Operation Torch, and German City Rommelbase. These are already in Africa to try and coerce the AI to sending troops into North Africa, even if only a small number of troops, to do a proper North African campaign. Granted, this design choice came about before I heard of your choice to disable airlifts, as I considered the AI might airlift units into these cities to assist in the Battle for Africa. Which reminds me, there is no Antartica in my map, or any narrow passes beneath Africa and South America, so Suez and Panama are the only way to travel between Pacific and Atlantic, making these even more critically important from a strategic level. If I am not mistaken, it was much cheaper to sail to the Suez through the Mediterranean than it was to brave the cold and sail all the way around the cape of South Africa. This isn't something well modelled in "full" maps.

My enlargening of important areas (notably Europe, Pacific Ocean, and in some ways Russia) was in attempt to get rid of "useless land" that was just going to get in the way, so that it could play more like a normal Civ IV game, and maybe the AI would be better at playing it. I snipped away at extraneous land the same way a good director or editor snips away at the elements of a Story that don't move the plot forward. A good example would be Star Wars A New Hope vs Star Wars Phantom Menace. In the latter (and especially the George Lucas version of Clone Wars before the cartoons made it good) there were so many extra scenes which did nothing to the plot, so too might extra lands and peoples confuse the AI from the real central narrative, the important battles etcetera.

It is partly this reason why I do hesistate in adding those 6-8 extra tiles of width to the Atlantic Ocean, because due to Operation Torch and D-Day, and of course the American "Europe First" policy, it might not be terrible to keep USA fairly close to Europe, so that an AI player might be tempted to follow a similar path. Truly, the Pacific Ocean is incredibly important due to the Island Hopping strategies, and the abilities for certain planes to take place in certain battles and for others not to, and for Carriers to actually mean something in a reality where carrier planes are more specialized to take on Ships than actual land positions ... In any case what I mean is that the Pacific Ocean matters in terms of Air and Sea warfare ... while the Atlantic Ocean is only there to prevent New York bombs from reaching Paris ... without going through London first of course.

And similar effects could happen from just making maps more massive and even more massive .... but A) you would just be reintroducing more 'useless' areas, and B) you would make the game all but unplayable except on God Machines specifically designed to squeeze as much performance out of BtS Civ IV as is physically possible .... essentially we still want the game playable on a variety of machines ... and therefore a smaller and more focused map, where the important areas are actually bigger .... does seem to be a winning solution.

I do hope you take a look at my map with serious interest, and please give me back plenty of feedback!!! As a fellow creator, it heartens me that you have adopted many of the design choices that I have considered for a WW2 mod (as I was trying to recreate the long lost 1939 mod but with a new religions-using flair) ... including using an early version of Pz IV and a late game version of Pz IV ... and that the unitgraphics are so accurate! It is truly a dream, and I hope that my map could be of some use, even if only as inspiration for an even better map. But of course, if you wish to use my map, or some variation of my map, for a scenario, feel free! As I am quite busy most of the time, sadly it may be some time before my map sees a place in a scenario of my own design.

Anyways, thank you for the quick response. Merry Christmas and Happy New Years!

 

[skyfire]

Tasunke, nice work on the map. Very interesting ideas, especially the larger Europe map. I have been thinking of doing something about that.

in attempt to get rid of "useless land" that was just going to get in the way, so that it could play more like a normal Civ IV game, and maybe the AI would be better at playing it.

Very good idea!

One of the major issues i have for myself is that it is not the complete world map, it is one of the main reasons i don't have seperate europe scenario's. Although your useless land idea is very good. Something to think about,i have to make choices. I like the world map because most countries are represented, and i always wanted devlope the mod/map/scenario into more modern scenarios, like i started with the 1960 map. I liked the MaxRiga mod, i took some ideas and units from that ( one example= satelites).

Now for the making of your scenario, the problem is, i like modding, but i love playing it even more in the few spare hours i have every week. So creating this scenario will take some dedication an time. But me like very much!!!

Your ideas on religion, it has been in the back of my mind, but never developed it due to the same reason i mentioned before; like playing more than modding...
And i don't know if i can mod it correctly without too many crashes, it will be a lot of trial and error, the way i usually mod

As a fellow creator, it heartens me that you have adopted many of the design choices that I have considered for a WW2 mod

I had thoughts of making a D-Day scenario, or Battle of the bulge scenario with my existing maps, but the ideas always stranded with the small Europe map. Only the battle of Kursk was possible.
I always like the idea of stepping in WW2 at a certain place or time. Your map has more possibilities.

Well, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too!