WW2-Global

[Rocoteh]

Thanks for that Rocoteh ... I cannot believe I missed the difficulty setting on the Players page .

I do hope you don't think i'm standing on your toes by trying to make a MP version myself ... to be honest, with the apparent lack of interest in MP 1.0, I didn't imagine you would have much interest in creating MP 1.1.

One good thing i'm seeing from following the thread is that some of the regulars are starting to acknowledge that you have to play against humans in order to get a decent challenge - the AI is just never going to be up the task.
That being said, it remains to be seen if those players try out multiplayer as we all know of the pitfalls of relying on certain people to see games through. I notice that Spartaca has advertised a PBEM he is starting which needs just three players as well as himself ... he is getting people to view the post but so far no one has taken him up on it .....

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=116822

check it out if you like, guys. It is similar in idea to the MP version I am testing except it is Roco's MP 1.0 whereas the one I am working on is a conversion of SP 1.8 which is much more up to date.

Dazz_G

On lack of interest for the Multiplayer version.

30 years ago I saw the "golden age of wargaming":
The S.P.I.-era 1973-1979.
Feedback send to S.P.I. showed that only about 20% of players
had played the wargames human versus human. 80% played
the games solitaire. With regard to this I do not think much have
changed the last 30 years.
The multiplayer version of WW2-Global have been downloaded
close to 10% of the regular version.
Thus if one consider the above mentioned I do not interprete that
as lack of interest for the MP version.

I want to support MP games and thus MP 1.1 will have priority
among my projects when the AI-version have been completed some
days from now.

Question on China in MP version: Why not let one player control
both France and China? In most games France should have lost
France-Europe within 40-50 turns. If the same player also control
China it could make the game more interesting.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

1st -- I do enjoy getting something sometimes with my elite troops, but armies slant the balance of power toward the human player too much. In my German game, I have a house rule that I will only fill armies with conscript infantry. They are still proving to be a very valuable force. I do not know anything about the editor. Is it possible to generate any kind of unit? I was thinking that instead of a "leader" type unit, you could produce a unit with a higher attack/defense capability and would have the blitz and higher movement that an army would have. For example, a 17 hit point unit with an attack and defense a little higher then the normal infantry of that nation with blitz ability and movement of 2. That would "force" the AI into "building their armies" correctly. If that is not possible, then removing them is probably the best idea.

allin1joe,

I will probably remove armies and replace them "fighting" leaders.
The leader does of course not represent a one man army moving
around and fighting. It will represent command and control and the
fact that some generals for sure was worth more than armored division!

Rocoteh

 

[Dazz_G]

Did this continue to happen even in the later stages of the game? Cause what you mention did happen in my game till the end of 1941. However, I think that as the AI cities become more productive = more units in the same time, I think the AI does start filling up the transports to full capacity. This is what is happening in my game atleast with Britain, America, and I guess even Japan.

The furthest I got into a game before abandoning to move up to a new version was 1.5 where I played until the end of 1942. The Japanese had tons of Marines units flying about ... I know this because of the counter attacks on my cities on mainland China which were hit with wave after wave of them ... but anytime they sent an invasion force out to my islands, the transport only ever contained 1 unit, and it was never a Marines unit either. I used to think this was because DDFs could also transport units and due to this the AI was spreading its transported units across too many ships but since the removal of DDF transport capability, I have yet to see any real improvement in the transport situation.

 

[Dazz_G]

Should a transport
be allowed to load 25 units, we will probably soon see AI moving
one transport loaded with 25 tank-units escorted by 2 destroyers......

Rocoteh

The Submarine Captain's dream come true

I agree with Allin1joe on this ... I think too much transport capacity benefits the human more than the AI .

 

[Dazz_G]

Dazz_G

Question on China in MP version: Why not let one player control
both France and China? In most games France should have lost
France-Europe within 40-50 turns. If the same player also control
China it could make the game more interesting.

Rocoteh

The reason for dropping China was due to the 8 position limit for MP ... I wasn't happy with the combined Germany / Italy thing as it makes Italy too strong, especially in Africa. I wanted to keep then as seperate entities so someone had to go ... namely China. I could have combined France and China ... indeed, I thought of this option, but didn't want to strengthen China by making French units buildable for them ... the thought of Soumas roaming around hitting the Japanese Infantry

As for making the game more interesting for the French player, my idea is for France, Britain and USA to be the same player, as seperate countries, Germany, Italy and Japan to be one player, again as seperate countries, and USSR as the third player, Neutrals being computer controlled. The reason for reducing the number of players being to make the game flow much faster with less potential for drop outs ... our TGW and WW2 Global PBEMs have both suffered from these problems.

 

[Dazz_G]

I will probably remove armies and replace them "fighting" leaders.
The leader does of course not represent a one man army moving
around and fighting. It will represent command and control and the
fact that some generals for sure was worth more than armored division!

Rocoteh

I like that idea ... it should be one that even the AI can use effectively.

 

[eaglefox]

allin1joe,

I will probably remove armies and replace them "fighting" leaders.
The leader does of course not represent a one man army moving
around and fighting. It will represent command and control and the
fact that some generals for sure was worth more than armored division!

Rocoteh

yes, I would like to see this implemented too. As long as the AI gets something it can use, I don't care about the rest. Yes, the Italian leaders will become just as competent as their US and German counterparts but oh well. With the game engine reality can be pushed only so much.

 

[Rocoteh]

The reason for dropping China was due to the 8 position limit for MP ... I wasn't happy with the combined Germany / Italy thing as it makes Italy too strong, especially in Africa. I wanted to keep then as seperate entities so someone had to go ... namely China. I could have combined France and China ... indeed, I thought of this option, but didn't want to strengthen China by making French units buildable for them ... the thought of Soumas roaming around hitting the Japanese Infantry

As for making the game more interesting for the French player, my idea is for France, Britain and USA to be the same player, as seperate countries, Germany, Italy and Japan to be one player, again as seperate countries, and USSR as the third player, Neutrals being computer controlled. The reason for reducing the number of players being to make the game flow much faster with less potential for drop outs ... our TGW and WW2 Global PBEMs have both suffered from these problems.

Dazz_G,

Clarification: I meant that France and China should be separate Civs
but controlled by one player.

I will have the 3-player model you mention in mind when I make MP 1.1.
I think its a very good idea.

On China as part of neutrals: It may work!

Rocoteh

 

[eaglefox]

I have now started my assault on America. Mexico got involved in a war agianst the Allies just 3 turns before I could attack Panama. I thought I would be able to get theri in time to relieve them. However by the time I got the chance to attack they were all but gone.

 

[Rocoteh]

yes, I would like to see this implemented too. As long as the AI gets something it can use, I don't care about the rest. Yes, the Italian leaders will become just as competent as their US and German counterparts but oh well. With the game engine reality can be pushed only so much.

eaglefox,

The removal of armies should be an important way to
strenghten AI.

Rocoteh

 

[eaglefox]

I took Panama city but not before losing two Tigers. I should have attacked with my armies but I wanted to see how the Tigers would fare. The good news is America lost a major chunk of its fighters. 28 of 71 F4Fs were in Panama.

 

[Rocoteh]

eaglefox,

Thank you for the report and the screenshots.

I am looking forward to follow how the invasion turns out.

Rocoteh

 

[eaglefox]

eaglefox,

The removal of armies should be an important way to
strenghten AI.

Rocoteh

I couldn't agree more. With my armies I find it too easy to steamroll over the AI no matter what it throws at me. This is one of the reasons why I have so much land in my German 1.7 game. Its only because I decided to stop and build up a big force why I haven't done much in 1942. If I wanted I could easily have overtaken Russia and then Britain.

Operation Liberty: German Invasion of America

The Americans have now launched their first counteroffensive, although by the looks of it their back is already broken. As I had expected, I have complete air superiority right now, and with my Me-262s, I can dismantle any fighter force they throw at me.

In the Pacific, the Japs, after an entire year, have finally managed to break US forces and have captued Manilla, Panay, and Palawan in quick succession. It seems as though the evils of democracy and freemdom shall once and for all be defeated .

 

[Rocoteh]

eaglefox,

The roads in Mexico are not connected to each other.

Thus I think AI will have problems to reinforce the current counterattack
in a relevant way. (Unless AI have improved the road-system of course.)

Rocoteh

 

[Adler17]

eaglefox,

Thank you for the report.

On transports: There will probably be auto-production in 1.9.
Should a transport
be allowed to load 25 units, we will probably soon see AI moving
one transport loaded with 25 tank-units escorted by 2 destroyers......

Welcome back

Rocoteh

Rohr 1 bis 4: Torpedos los!

Indeed they will be a much bigger target. Nevertheless in my games I played mostly BBs or CAs at least covered transports. Especially the Japanese did so. Also the British. But the British invasions were much more the attempt to make the Germans or Italians lough to death as sending only one tank unit. I mean my coastal cities are only lightly defended but I was ever able to beat these "forces". However I don´t see a good solution.
The Lack of armies would have slowed down my advance and I would have had much higher losses in the previous games. However I would try it and then judge.

Adler

 

[Rocoteh]

Adler,

I will test the "no-army" concept in the special AI version.

The battle-created unit will be a leader with stats 22-18-2 (no blitz).
This leader can then be promoted to General with the Land 1941 tech.
Maybe it will be possible to promote it once more to Field Marshal.
No decision on that yet.

Rocoteh

 

[WelshCivGuy]

Ive just finished downloading WW2 global and have the files saved to my desktop. Can anybody tell me how to open it in Conquests? I've tried loading it from the "load game" option but when i click on it the folder simply opens into the "art" and "Text" sections. This scenario looks awesome...

 

[Grizx]

WelshCivguy

If you go to the first page of this forum and scroll down there are some instructions for where to put the scenario files. If you follow those instructions carefully it should work OK.

You can then go to Civ Content on the main start menu and launch the 1.8 scenario from there. Just be aware that when you start a new game it will take most computers up to an hour to load the game for the first time. It will look like your computer has locked up, but just be patient. When I load games I start the load and then go do something else for an hour or so rather than stare at the computer.

Or you can download a saved game and put it in the saved game folder after getting all the other scenario files in the right place. Saved games load very quickly.

Good luck

Grizx

 

[Grizx]

eaglefox,

I am interested to see that the US AI has invaded Mexico, In the Britain scenario I just played the US had still not invaded Mexico by Week 6, 1943. What level are you playing at? i am wondering wondering whether the level affects the US decison to invade Mexico or not. I think it is a good sign when the US invades Mexico as that makes the US more of a challenge to defeat. The US does not seem to have made many improvemnts - or did you bomb/destroy them?

I just started a 1.8 game as Germany and I plan to try an early invasion of South America, (if I can) as a diversion so am trying to figure what I can expect. Thanks.

Grizx

 

[eaglefox]

eaglefox,

I am interested to see that the US AI has invaded Mexico, In the Britain scenario I just played the US had still not invaded Mexico by Week 6, 1943. What level are you playing at? i am wondering wondering whether the level affects the US decison to invade Mexico or not. I think it is a good sign when the US invades Mexico as that makes the US more of a challenge to defeat. The US does not seem to have made many improvemnts - or did you bomb/destroy them?

I just started a 1.8 game as Germany and I plan to try an early invasion of South America, (if I can) as a diversion so am trying to figure what I can expect. Thanks.

Grizx

Grizx:
I am playing at Emporer level - one of the saved games posted in this thread. You are right in that the US does not invade Mexico on its own. In fact, it was the British who declared war on Mexico in my game and then they captured a Mexican city. It is probably when Mexico tried to retake their city that the Mutual Protection kicked in and brought the US in. But when the US did come in they ran over Mexico in three turns - poor guys. The US did not make any improvement in Mexico probably because of the presence of my troops. I had just landed near Panama city, ended my turn and Mexico got destroyed - they lost five cities to the US in that turn. Hard to believe considering the poor road network in Mexico. Mexico had a bad infrastructure right from start to finish. I did not touch any infrastructure in Mexico at all. I try not to bomb any improvements unless it becomes absolutely necessary - cuts down a lot of work later, helps me launch my own offensives, and I hate losing those movement points.