WW2 for Dummies

Originally posted by Happyman
Oh yeah im an american not some crazy canadian thinking the US sucks i love america but i also love fact.

Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, but...

Crazy US hating Canadians?
It's peculiar how you throw us in the mix like that. I hope all you yanks don't think of us like that. To be honest, I haven't seen many things that Americans do/say/think that I agree with, but I assure you that I, and most of us canucks, are neither American Haters nor crazy.

Well, maybee i'm a bit crazy......... :crazyeye:


As for the nukes (and correct me if I am somehow horribly mistaken) I do believe America would not have them as soon as they did if it were not for us Canadians mining and refining the Uranium, not to mention our scientific contribution.

So, maybe, a 'Canadian assistence' small wonder would be in order. Not to mention our contributions during the Battle of Britain, and all the supplies we forked over to them. Besides, we were one of the first nations to join in the allied cause (1 week after the war began)

Don't like my Idea? :(
Ahh, well, what's a guy to do then?
 
First off I must say that I admire your idea to make a REAL scenario, as I agree that almost all that I have found have NO basis in true geography or history, NOR STRATEGY!
So what is the point, no? There hasn't even been a BAD (history-wise), but FUN scenario similar to the default WW2 Europe one in old Civ2!

Also, WW2 was basically in Europe... because a "Pacific War" is NOT at all similar to WW1, more like the Russo-Japanese War and it all is pretty limited in terms of strategy and variability... Navy and marines, can you say Vikings?

Scenerio-wise, the US just take up CPU-usage with dumb build-up and naval movement over a vast ocean, so its just ridiculous to expect them to be handy in a Civ-strategic light, so props to you on that.
Off the subject, the Russians won WW2... not the US.
Compare 16 million dead Russians, even tho sometimes they didnt have rifles =) vs. a combined 500,000 between US, France and Britain... 'nuff said.

Anyways, this should TRULY BE USED FOR SCENARIO INFO! I don't want to read your dumb signature and I don't want it to take up most of the screen... knock it off, ppl! I do appreciate the interesting observations on WW2, since I am quite the history buff... Yet... This is a Civ3 forum for Hel's sake and what is Civ3? War strategy I would hope...

I haven't played too far into your Scenario Cherokee, but I can tell you its far superior to almost everything out... Why can I say this? Because I have started many of the lame WW2 scenarios and decided... you know what? I am not waiting 5 minutes per turn! WTF! I dont need 50 cities per nation, thanks anyways...

SO AWESOME job on making a nice scnario... around 120x120 is perfect... I also think the care given to making realistic war units and geographically accurate cities is very enjoyable...
I also think having abundant resources is dumb and like how you've limited the resources for strategy... Strategy is GOOD!

*Although, My first criticism is this: Why in Hel's name would German EVER fight in North Africa if there isn't ANY resources? There sure ain't food! Methinks even a tad of Oil in Africa might make it more like history... although I have taken it upon myself to add it =) so I shall see if it plays out and will prob. let you know...

*Second criticism is simple: I want an updated scenario =) since you said you did...

*Third criticism: As the Germans, my primary capital went to Oslo! I know having more than one capital used to work in Civ2, but it glitched in my game. So I changed it myself to no capital in Oslo so i could of course have one in Berlin... something to consider...

Also- researching Future Tech is pretty boring, so I don't mind extra advances, although if they made even a slight improvement they might be more worthwhile.. I also like how you don't use the units in synthetic fiber and robotics, since that makes the game very unrealistic...

I definitely don't think this is "For Dummies," mostly because of its appeal to those with frontal lobes who don't want to take Stalingrad in the Ukraine, on the Sea of Azov or worse, at the Urals...

I also like how The Axis is split into different nations... if you start out with most of Europe and you want to play Germany, you're almost done. Not making the neutral states one whole civ is nice too... how realistic is it that sweden and switzerland would be so closely related? Even tho Dublin should be neutral, Britain needs as much of a powerbase as possible (and not in the middle-east! thats more slow build up with no results), so I respect that choice. And also making France and Britain the only alliance since Europe never allies cohesively in real history. BTW- what are the Danes doing on the player list? I want to make them a separate nation, but considering the time-frame its inappropriate- especially since I want to take them over anyway. Did you have something in mind for Denmark???

Well, good job on the scenario. You've proved yourself superior to the many amateurs who post their own ( Not that i dont download and play them and never make my own, just edit =op )... I think you just need to refine it now, and give us another version... hopefully using the ww2 units from ptw that most never use...

Wes thu hal!
Blitzkrieg
 
blitzkrieg80.. your a little loco.

I think every WWII scenario here is fun and is somewhat historical, the most historical being Aeldrik's.. which is by far my favorite scenario.

WWI and WWII are named because how they affected the world because of it's area-span and it's innovations, diplomacy, etc. I wouldn't say the Pacific Theater of WWII had less strategy than the European Theater.. I believe it's the other way around.

Have you updated the scenario yet?
 
Top Bottom