WW2-Global Equuleus's Fall Gelb Mod

[Simon Darkshade]

Neither Persia nor Greece were ever part of the British Empire.
British Empire already has autobuilders for the mentioned Imperial units. Not all were defensive in nature.

I think it is important that we decide what different units represent in terms of strength. This point is particularly about the Indian Forces.

Why rename Verdun?

I'd keep Stanleyville - It gives the Belgians somewhere to survive, just as an appropriate South American colony would do so for the Dutch.

 

[Hammerwise]

Neither Persia nor Greece were ever part of the British Empire.
British Empire already has autobuilders for the mentioned Imperial units. Not all were defensive in nature.

I think it is important that we decide what different units represent in terms of strength. This point is particularly about the Indian Forces.

Why rename Verdun?

I'd keep Stanleyville - It gives the Belgians somewhere to survive, just as an appropriate South American colony would do so for the Dutch.

Yes good point SDarkshade, but Greece, Middle East were essentially "occupied" by British troops, administrations, policies, etc... As I said they were "members" of the Empire by default = some form of: british troops stationed in their country, part british administration of governments or policies, but above all economically tied. None were true members of the commonwealth like AUS, NZ, etc... but were lands to a degree under Empire control, thats why I don't believe (except for Persia and Afghanistan) they should be seperate entities or individual troops. For example: Egypt's leaders were somewhat pro-Axis, they were put in exile and replaced by pro-Empire leaders, however as Rommel got closer these leaders returned and the leadership of the Egyptian army, including Anwar Sadat, prepared a coup. (So many of these countries while not part of or pro-Empire were not openly hostile, so therefore should not be independent, but should not offer immense military value either)

The empire besides its material contribution were useful in manpower to a degree. While Japan was still running wild in the pacific, Australian/NZ troops were being moved away from protecting their own countries to protect the Empire's (essentially England's) assets in the middle east.

Possibly decrease length in which some of the empire flavor autobuilt units appear but make them "purer" garrison type troops? The empire troops were often of varying degrees of quality, but for example South african troops have better stats than Poland or France? Possibly make them like the romanian/hungarian troops that have much lower a/d values, the empire could produce units a tad quicker, but not as more than defensive/garrison type units (except some like gurkha units)? Making them more like regiment sized than division sized?

 

[Hammerwise]

Not sure if game allows this, but ultimately I would like to see Countries like romania, hungary, india as seperate YET controllable entities. Say for example: The player playing Germany would control these cities and units, but would only be able to build units/buildings available to that "entity". Such as Germany controls Iasi and the romanian units but can only build Romanian out of that city?

I don't know (and don't believe) that this is possible but thought it was interesting.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Greece was never occupied by British troops or any form of administration. The only Empire forces ever in Greece were those sent to fight the Germans in 41.
Similarly, Persia was only invaded by Britain and the Soviets jointly some time after the start of this scenario. It was never part of the empire.

Australian and NZ forces were not being moved away to the Middle East when Japan entered the war. That was when the 2nd AIF returned home. The 2nd New Zealand Division remained in the ETO, as they were not required for home defence or nearby campaigns; the 3rd was always in the Pacific, and the 1st, 4th and 5th were on home defence duties.
The Australian and NZ expeditionary forces had been sent from early 1940, when Japan was not at war.

You seem to have a rather skewed account of the facts, particularly in regards to Greece and the broader notion of who and what comprised the Empire.

Egypt, Transjordan and Iraq are already under British Empire control, as was the case historically.

The notion of garrison and lesser type units is one that can be fulfilled with a previously explored notion of a British Infantry Brigade. That leaves the divisions and the Imperial and Dominion divisions for their true roles. Anzac, Canadian/Newfoundland and South African/Rhodesian divisions were of the highest quality and utilized in a number of cases as shock troops. Their roles was not that of the garrison.

 

[Equuleus]

Belgium still has 2 cities in Africa.
IMHO I think they only need Leopoldville.
I think it is a good idea to put a Dutch city in South America.
I am trying to make turns shorter by cutting useless cities.

 

[Hammerwise]

Greece was never occupied by British troops or any form of administration. The only Empire forces ever in Greece were those sent to fight the Germans in 41.


Australian and NZ forces were not being moved away to the Middle East when Japan entered the war. That was when the 2nd AIF returned home. The 2nd New Zealand Division remained in the ETO, as they were not required for home defence or nearby campaigns; the 3rd was always in the Pacific, and the 1st, 4th and 5th were on home defence duties.
The Australian and NZ expeditionary forces had been sent from early 1940, when Japan was not at war.
.

for the most part agree,
the first greek leader metaxas did not want british aid, (due to unpleasant memories of being pushed around by british), but allowed british air force squadrons stationed in greece.
when he died in jan 1941 his successor allowed a british army (primarily NZ and AUS divisions) to man the bulgarian border (freeing up greek troops to fight italy on albanian front). This was before germans attacked in april. After retreat, 30,000 british troops and only 10,000 greek moved to crete with brits taking overall command.
Iran was trying to nationalize their resources (oil) as they had been exploited by the british, as you pointed out they were effectively invaded and taken over by ussr/britain.
Iraq had regained their independence from britain in early 1930s but Britain retained the right to station troops there and exploit their oil. (Persia of course was independent)
Empire essentially "occupied" egypt for 60 yrs to control oil and suez canal.
As for NZ they requested their armed forces fighting italy and germany to return home following japan entering the war, britain was reluctant to do so and finally as japan got closer brit allowed the nz navy to go back but their airmen and 2nd division would remain under british control. essentially the result of these frustrations would result in kiwis no longer thinking of themselves as british.
But by and large this is what commonwealth/dependents/etc are for, to be used and for use of the country running the empire.

Just seems highly "unfair" (couldn't think of another term) that german satelites who have infantry on the frontline have horrendous stats whereas british CW troops have tremendous stats.

 

[Hammerwise]

not to have a history battle, my intial point was that Britain was deeply involved in Iran, Iraq, Greece, Egypt. Not necessarily control but had something to gain/loss in each place. In regards to the scenario: While greece should remain an independent, iran/iraq/eygpt should not.

The obvious emphasis "as an empire" was to preserve their essential resources (oil) and remain in authority over preserving "parts" of the empire.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Your initial point was that they were part of the Empire. They were not. They never were, and particularly were not in any way, shape or form in June of 1940. Persia and Greece were independent sovereign entities.
Egypt was a protectorate, Transjordan a mandate.
In the case of Persia, you seem to be confusing the 1950s nationalization problems with the reasons for Operation Countenance. It was conducted for the protection of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, but the pro-Axis sympathies of the Shah were of more concern, given the utility of the Persian Corridor.

Persia, therefore, is best left independent at the start, with the potential for absorbtion.

Iraq and Egypt are already under British control. They never have not been in any iteration of this scenario, to my knowledge. Therefore, theirs is a foregone fate.

New Zealand national identity was quite well developed, and the role of the 2nd Division was not a major one. There was a little event called Gallipoli and the First World War that had already occured.

NZ did not have a navy until 1941 and at this point the NZ Division of the RN consisted of Achilles and Leander, both of which were rotated to the Pacific.

The RAN did come back for operations nearer to home.

It may seem unfair that Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania have inferior troops, but it is accurate. They did not have the equipment, the training, the elan or the quality of the key Dominion troops - the Anzacs, the Canadians and the South Africans. Life and war are rarely fair, and any disparity is compensated by the fact that these forces must be transported from the various ends of the world to the main theatres of operations.

Cutting cities will only reduce turns so much.

 

[Equuleus]

Here is a tip I just got from Al Costa

"Credits to Blue Lion/Civinator for figuring this out.

Usually, users put scenarios and their .biqs in the folders [Civilization III Folder]/Conquests/Scenarios.

Well, the Storm over Europe team figured out, if you place the scenarios and .biqs in

[Civilization III Folder]/Conquests/Conquests

that the loading times get cut down by half and the turn times are drastically reduced. Just a heads up for y'all."

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Now there is a little trick that sounds excellent.

 

[Equuleus]

Some ideas for 1.7
1.Cut back on the power of German battleships.
2.Maybe make Japan not part of the Axis and have a timed war trigger for them in 41. If the axis had won ww2 Japan and Germany would have started fighting each other.
3.A very radical idea is to make the allies all one civ. Cut all trade so in France they can only make French units in the UK British units etc. Same with the Axis. Most likely not but it is an interesting idea.

 

[The Loser]

Some ideas for 1.7
1.Cut back on the power of German battleships.
2.Maybe make Japan not part of the Axis and have a timed war trigger for them in 41. The the axis had won ww2 Japan and Germany would have started fighting each.
3.A very radical idea is to make the allies all one civ. Cut all trade so in France they can only make French units in the UK British units etc. Same with the Axis. Most likely not but it is an interesting idea.

I don't really know what you mean with nr. 2 : The the axis had won ww2 Japan and Germany would have started fighting each.??????

And nr. 3 would be to much hehehe

 

[Equuleus]

I meant.
If the axis had won ww2 Japan and Germany would have started fighting each other.
It was a typo.

2 & much more so 3 kind of out there. But they were just some interesting ideas IMHO.

As for 1 I am really considering it.

 

[Vericitas]

Some ideas for 1.7
1.Cut back on the power of German battleships.
2.Maybe make Japan not part of the Axis and have a timed war trigger for them in 41. If the axis had won ww2 Japan and Germany would have started fighting each.
3.A very radical idea is to make the allies all one civ. Cut all trade so in France they can only make French units in the UK British units etc. Same with the Axis. Most likely not but it is an interesting idea.

to Nr.2:

I think you will need more triggers, because the AI makes often Peace after some turns.
You will need that for Germany (against Soviet Russia), too.

 

[Equuleus]

I am working on that for Russia to keep the war going once it starts.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Having Japan on separate timing would be interesting, but it would have to be slightly ahistorical, and they would still need prepositioned assets - more forces on Pacific Islands close to jumping off points.

Combining the Allies would simply create a monster. It would be difficult to manage, but would make use of the Atlantic. But with a start of June 1940, then the Axis are going to be overtaken very quickly.

 

[Equuleus]

I was thinking of Japan not part of any alliance same with the Chinas and have them fighting from the start with war triggers.
I dunno about how it would play out though , but it is just an interesting idea.

@Simon
I could use your advice on a few issues.
1.Cutting down on the power of German battleships.
2.Indian Regiments changed to militia. And the changing of militia into "British Infantry Brigade".
Do you think the new brigade unit should have changed stats?
3.Adding British mines from Hamburg to Bremen opposite the German mines to encourage a fleet in being strategy for the German AI.
4.Do you have any new ideas to reform naval war in general.

 

[Equuleus]

Hi all.
I messed up my SwordmanFortify.wav file. Long story .
Can someone please post it since I don't want to have to reinstall civ3.
Thx in advance.

 

[Equuleus]

I problem is I cut off the " " at the end of SwordmanFortify .wav.
Now it will not work.
I tried to add the space to the name but it would not save.

 

[Equuleus]

NM I fixed it.
Thank god for power desk.