WW2-Global

[I_batman]

oljb007,

The next BETA probably early December.
I hope I will be able to release version 2.1 December 22.

Rocoteh

Hi Rocoteh, I have finally got around to looking at your 1.8 huge map you sent me a couple weeks ago.
Not sure I should look at it at all, since it detracts from any time I spend sorting out how CIV IV's Python and XML work.
But could not stay away.

From the notes above though, is it safe to say there is a 1.9 and 2.0 huge available?

One thing that jumps out at me on the 1.8 huge map is that it appears some key Pacific islands are missing, among them Midway and Wake.
Are they added in later versions, is there some logic for their omission?

 

[Rocoteh]

Hi Rocoteh, I have finally got around to looking at your 1.8 huge map you sent me a couple weeks ago.
Not sure I should look at it at all, since it detracts from any time I spend sorting out how CIV IV's Python and XML work.
But could not stay away.

From the notes above though, is it safe to say there is a 1.9 and 2.0 huge available?

One thing that jumps out at me on the 1.8 huge map is that it appears some key Pacific islands are missing, among them Midway and Wake.
Are they added in later versions, is there some logic for their omission?

I_batman,

Numbers on BETA-versions is not connected with numbers on the regular
versions. Thus BETA 1.8 is the current one.
On Midway and Wake:
Yes for sure there is a logic reason.
I have hit the 512 cities limit!
Thus if I add them I must remove two cities.
This is not so easy one can think at a first look.

Rocoteh

 

[I_batman]

I_batman,

Numbers on BETA-versions is not connected with numbers on the regular
versions. Thus BETA 1.8 is the current one.
On Midway and Wake:
Yes for sure there is a logic reason.
I have hit the 512 cities limit!
Thus if I add them I must remove two cities.
This is not so easy one can think at a first look.

Rocoteh

LOL.
Yeah, I should have figured something like that.
And I completely understand your problems with removing cities.

A couple comments on 1.8.
Forgive me if these points has already been made.
1. I like the additional range on a road.
I would also suggest bumping up the range of arial and naval units as well, say 50-75%? I believe you have more than doubled the map size. I do not think a one-to-one increase is required, but some increase in range should be considered.

2. Where is the closest oil supply on the Asian mainland that Japan can sieze, in order to be able to build mechanized units in any captured Chinese cities?

 

[Sasebo]

I_batman: While I agree it sounds reasonable to up those units speeds it has to be carefully considered. There are a couple of issues and some balances can get messed up if you do that. I am thiniking specifically of the fighter's intercept radius being related to their movement(half? half rounded down? Which is it?) and the DD to transport ratio. Currently with the way things are now, if you use DDs as scouts out of your ports every turn you can spot any transport before it can land troops on your coast. Whether you can deal with it's escorts is another matter. I'm not sure if Rocoteh wants to mess with that one or not; back in the versions with the DDF having transport capacity things were much more uncertain because you could not be sure when a pack of DD flotillas would show up and dump a load of troops on your shores. The AI for sure knew how to use those.

I am not sure IIRC, but if there are no RR in the new bigger versions and the roads are standing in for rails then it makes sense that ground units using them are faster then the naval units.

One other thing Rocoteh, did you ever give Germany some option to build heavy bombers at some point? I am a little jealous of Italy's big boys that I see in the pedia. Longer range bombers is actualy what I was wanting.

 

[Rocoteh]

I batman,

"A couple comments on 1.8.
Forgive me if these points has already been made.
1. I like the additional range on a road.
I would also suggest bumping up the range of arial and naval units as well, say 50-75%? I believe you have more than doubled the map size. I do not think a one-to-one increase is required, but some increase in range should be considered."
I batman

I will look this problem over.
Should there be any versions after 2.1 its possible I will try
the idea I think Rhye invented:
Fast sea-corridors.

"2. Where is the closest oil supply on the Asian mainland that Japan can sieze, in order to be able to build mechanized units in any captured Chinese cities?"
I batman

There is no such oil resource within reasonable range.
It will be changed in the next BETA.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

Sasebo,

"I'm not sure if Rocoteh wants to mess with that one or not; back in the versions with the DDF having transport capacity things were much more uncertain because you could not be sure when a pack of DD flotillas would show up and dump a load of troops on your shores. The AI for sure knew how to use those."
Sasebo

Yes the problem with fast transports are that no naval interception
exist in CIV III. In fact I think this a major problem!
In reality invasions on the Normandy-scale was high-risk operations.
Its almost impossible to simulate that in CIV III since there are no
naval interception. The same holds true for CIV IV.

"One other thing Rocoteh, did you ever give Germany some option to build heavy bombers at some point? I am a little jealous of Italy's big boys that I see in the pedia. Longer range bombers is actualy what I was wanting."
Sasebo

I will introduce such bombers in the release version.

Rocoteh

 

[Bob1475]

Rocoteh - A note just to tell you that I am still here awaiting your next release - beta or otherwise. Obviously I have been playing with Civ4 which is much more of a strategic game as combined arms is absolutely required. I check in on Global every few days so I will not miss the next release which I see will approach Christmas.

 

[I_batman]

I know this is an old problem, and inherent with the AI, but the German AI has razed 7 of the 11 cities it has captured.

It first wiped out Poland, but did not raze any of the Polish cities.
It has razed all the Dutch and Belgium cities except Amsterdam, and it has even razed Italian cities that the Germans recaptured from the French.

Has anyone ever figured out what algorithm the AI is using when it decides to destroy a city or not?

I haven't been keeping really close tabs on it, but I don't believe all these cities had been reduced to population 1 before being captured.

It appears Paris and Lille are next up on the German menu, so I will watch their population as best as I can before they are captured.

 

[Rocoteh]

Rocoteh - A note just to tell you that I am still here awaiting your next release - beta or otherwise. Obviously I have been playing with Civ4 which is much more of a strategic game as combined arms is absolutely required. I check in on Global every few days so I will not miss the next release which I see will approach Christmas.

Bob1475,

I am glad to hear that.

I agree with you on CIV IV and what you say about combined arms.
Hopefully Firaxis will do something to reduce the "Phalanx knocks out
Tank problem" though.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

I know this is an old problem, and inherent with the AI, but the German AI has razed 7 of the 11 cities it has captured.

It first wiped out Poland, but did not raze any of the Polish cities.
It has razed all the Dutch and Belgium cities except Amsterdam, and it has even razed Italian cities that the Germans recaptured from the French.

Has anyone ever figured out what algorithm the AI is using when it decides to destroy a city or not?

I haven't been keeping really close tabs on it, but I don't believe all these cities had been reduced to population 1 before being captured.

It appears Paris and Lille are next up on the German menu, so I will watch their population as best as I can before they are captured.

I batman,

Yes city-razing by AI is a severe problem.
Placing Wonders are the only (95%) effective way to stop city-razing.

Its interesting that you mention this, since its shows an overall problem
with CIV III scenarios: De facto the support for CIV III from Firaxis
ceased many months ago. If they just had fixed this problem and some
others in a final patch it would have been of great value!

In the final version of WW2-Global 2.1 I intend to place as many wonders
as possible.

Rocoteh

 

[Adler17]

Be careful with wonders as too much of them make the game unplayable. Civ IV has really many improvements but you have problems when it comes to the editing. However we have to see and wait. Most likely this will change with the time.

Adler

 

[Rocoteh]

Be careful with wonders as too much of them make the game unplayable. Civ IV has really many improvements but you have problems when it comes to the editing. However we have to see and wait. Most likely this will change with the time.

Adler

Adler,

I have not noticed any impact from Wonders that should slow
game down. Since there exist a limit for how many buildings and
wonders there can be I can not protect all cities from razing though.

Rocoteh

 

[I_batman]

I batman,

Its interesting that you mention this, since its shows an overall problem
with CIV III scenarios: De facto the support for CIV III from Firaxis
ceased many months ago. If they just had fixed this problem and some
others in a final patch it would have been of great value,

Rocoteh

And this point raises the fundamental question/wish/pipe dream/fantasy:
Will Firaxis/Take2 ever release the code for any of the previous Civ games so fans can patch it themselves?

If they ever released Civ III source code, I know that a lot of resources of forum members would be expended fixing a few bugs in that code.

 

[El Justo]

could the 'Xenophobic' flag for any particular civi mean more razing?

 

[Rocoteh]

And this point raises the fundamental question/wish/pipe dream/fantasy:
Will Firaxis/Take2 ever release the code for any of the previous Civ games so fans can patch it themselves?

If they ever released Civ III source code, I know that a lot of resources of forum members would be expended fixing a few bugs in that code.

I_batman,

I really doubt that.
Maybe 5 years from now, but then few people will play CIV III.
With the exception of the ill-fated Call to Power games no company
have ever tried to compete with Firaxis.
Its hard to understand why.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

could the 'Xenophobic' flag for any particular civi mean more razing?

El Justo,

I do not think that.
The only thing that seems to be certain on this issue is
that wonders give 95% protection against city-razing.
Despite the fact that many people have discussed this problem
for a long time-period Firaxis have never made any comment.

Rocoteh

 

[IarnGreiper]

Speaking of city razing, can we expect another beta version with more placed wonders and less city razing before release? I enjoy the beta but some games become sour, when you battle the AI in wastelands of razed cities. There is no ackomplishment in the Reich taking control of Africa if the whole middle east and Egypt is razed by the Russians.

 

[Rocoteh]

Speaking of city razing, can we expect another beta version with more placed wonders and less city razing before release? I enjoy the beta but some games become sour, when you battle the AI in wastelands of razed cities. There is no ackomplishment in the Reich taking control of Africa if the whole middle east and Egypt is razed by the Russians.

IarnGreiper,

I understand that.

My intention is that the next beta shall have protection
of cities from razing as the first priority.
I will thus focus work on that the next days.

Rocoteh

 

[I_batman]

IarnGreiper,

I understand that.

My intention is that the next beta shall have protection
of cities from razing as the first priority.
I will thus focus work on that the next days.

Rocoteh

Yes, I am afraid you have a lot more editing to do to add wonders.
The German AI at demi-god level, maximum aggression, just finished razing EVERY French city in mainland Europe, except for Lyon.
Add to that a couple Spanish cities and some Italian cities that were recaptured from the French, and the Germans are so far razing about 85% of all cities they capture.

On a different tack in the game, the Japanese position has been most interesting from a naval perspective. The US keep sending vast quantities of destroyers and subs, which I keep destroying, but the Japanese navy is slowly being weakened.
Add to that the carrier based planes the U.S. are using, and it is most interesting.

Unfortunately, the Chinese, British, French have been extremely timid in mainland Asia.
I have encountered very little resistance capturing Chinese cities, and the Brits have sent no armour into my territory.

I am massing for an attack against British held Mandalay, so that may tweak the AI into some tougher action.

 

[Sasebo]

Rocoteh: Not sure how well it helps the AI to not raze cities, but the "retain culture on capture" seems to help somewhat, though I don't have any hard numbers for you. The cities down in africa don't have any wonders, but they do get captured instead of razed 50-60% of the time that I've seen.

I_batman: Around the time the Japanese reach Mandalay/start producing Matilda 2s is when the Brithish seem to stiffen in Asia. I've only played a single game as Japan but it got simply brutal down there. It is te hordes of UK air that they throw at you that really hurts. It seemed easier to follow the coasts then to invade overland; naval bombard helps a lot!

Rocoteh, I've noticed in several earlier version games that China seems to go after Thailand early in the game, and I bet they lose significant ground troops to take 1-3 cities down there. That is probably a big reason why some people's playtests as Japan seem like China puts up weak resistance. Any chance of using weak little garrisons like you do in russia to prevent them from squandering their troops on those silly offensives? Now the garrisons would have to be allied troops, so I don't know if you can set them up that way.