WW2-Global

[Rocoteh]

marklv,

Soon one year have passed since the release of CIV IV.
Interest CIV IV scenarios is still low if one compare with the interest
fo CIV III scenarios.
I think this fact will be unchanged given we will see no editor for CIV IV.

Rocoteh

 

[otacon_22]

The reason that CIV III scenarios are more popular is because more people own and can run CIV III than CIV IV. Also, there are better scenario building tools for CIV III.

 

[Rocoteh]

The reason that CIV III scenarios are more popular is because more people own and can run CIV III than CIV IV. Also, there are better scenario building tools for CIV III.

otacon_22,

However this is worth to remember:

Number of posts August 2006.

CIV III Completed Modpacks 500

CIV IV Completed Modpacks 3000

CIV III Completed Scenarios 1000

CIV IV Completed Scenarios 250

Again I want to point out that CIV 3 is unsupported since 2 years
while CIV 4 has full support from Firaxis.

Rocoteh

Also: A comment on the special German AI-version I plan to release some weeks from now.

Current OOB will be unchanged.
Production-cost for all German units will be reduced with 50%.
It should offer a real challenge!

 

[I_batman]

marklv,

Soon one year have passed since the release of CIV IV.
Interest CIV IV scenarios is still low if one compare with the interest
fo CIV III scenarios.
I think this fact will be unchanged given we will see no editor for CIV IV.

Rocoteh

I don't want to get too off-topic in this thread, but my work on a Python based Civ IV editor did grind to a halt in late spring.
Now, that being said there appear to be a number of editors out there in the Civ IV world.
I have seen unit editors, terrain editors, tech editors, to state a few.
But I have not see one that pulls it all together.
And my statements about creating an editor to edit python or C++ code still stands.

There are clearly some fabulous coders in the Civ IV threads, but they seemed focused on building their modpacks, not "one editor to rule them all".

I am personally tired of AI vs human Civ III, mainly because I think the AI engine's capabilities have been exhausted by people like Rocoteh, and one or two others.
He has taken the game engine to the limit, and SP games still have huge flaws, that simply cannot be overcome unless Take2 magically releases the source code or an upgraded version of Civ III. There are other existing threads to discuss the possibility of that.

I applaud the efforts of Rocoteh, who has built some brilliant scenarios. But I am very afraid that the Civ III SP scenarios have almost run their course. The same problems arise in all scenarios.
I am talking about poor AI transport, bombardment, artilllery (or lack thereof) tactics, among others.

Now, MP PBEM's, that is another matter. There is no reason that scenarios built to all human players will not continue add infintum.

If Rocoteh wants to drive himself insane converting this scenario into something with 6-10 positions, all designed to be played by humans , I believe he could create a game that would be played for years to come.
But Rocoteh does not come across as someone willing to step into the madness required to do that.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

Wow Rocotech looks like your the best better tahn sno0py and your still on Civ 3! This looks like itll never get old! But may I post a request here?, Okay I was wondering bout a 1900s- 2000s map... think bout it! itll be one of the best... Relive WWI! Relive WWII! Relive Cold War! Relive Vietnam! Relive Korean! Relive Persian Gulf Incident!... think bout it... wont ya think itll be one of the perfect maps?.... OO yeah and dont make about 300 new units.. prob. less than 100 will do... or 200....
ooo yeah bout this map... I still havent dled this yet... sorrry
_____________
PS: If you do make that map please give me credit for thinkin' bout it for ya

 

[Red Door]

Dude, no mod maker does requests you imbicle.

Do you realize how much work that would take?

 

[I_batman]

Dude, no mod maker does requests you imbicle.

Do you realize how much work that would take?

Igonore him Al Costa. This guy is popping up everywhere the last couple days, and the sentiment about him is pretty uniform. Just don't respond to him.

 

[psweetman1590]

Recently, I've been thinking about this scenario, and how to make it more realistic, esp as Germany. As far as I can see, the main problem with it (and civIII in general) is that, unlike in RL, you are bound to have, and use, far more armored units than infantry units. As anyone can tell you, the infantry are the work-horses of any effective military.

So, I figured next time I played, I would follow the following house rule:

Only one (for each of the unit classes listed) city may build:
- Light Tanks (Panzer II, III, and IV)
- Medium Tanks (Panthers)
- Heavy Tanks (Tigers, King Tigers)
- Tank destroyers/mechanized infantry type units (Panzergrenadiers, jagdpanther, StuGIIIG, etc.
- Fighters
- Bombers
- Artillery, all types

I think this will make the game more challenging by giving me fewer fast, powerful weapons than I might have if I simply mass produced stukas and panzers. Of course, it also means that I'll have a butt-load of infantry, since they aren't all that expensive, but without too many planes or artillery, they won't be able to accomplish much on their own.

Opinions?

 

[Tomislav]

psweetman1590,

IMO this scenario is to hard to fight only with infatry (or with: "fewer fast, powerful weapons"). You will find that cities are to hard to conquer.
But try it, and please report your efforts Herr psweetman1590

Tomislav

 

[Baldurslayer]

Recently, I've been thinking about this scenario, and how to make it more realistic, esp as Germany. As far as I can see, the main problem with it (and civIII in general) is that, unlike in RL, you are bound to have, and use, far more armored units than infantry units. As anyone can tell you, the infantry are the work-horses of any effective military.

So, I figured next time I played, I would follow the following house rule:

Only one (for each of the unit classes listed) city may build:
- Light Tanks (Panzer II, III, and IV)
- Medium Tanks (Panthers)
- Heavy Tanks (Tigers, King Tigers)
- Tank destroyers/mechanized infantry type units (Panzergrenadiers, jagdpanther, StuGIIIG, etc.
- Fighters
- Bombers
- Artillery, all types

I think this will make the game more challenging by giving me fewer fast, powerful weapons than I might have if I simply mass produced stukas and panzers. Of course, it also means that I'll have a butt-load of infantry, since they aren't all that expensive, but without too many planes or artillery, they won't be able to accomplish much on their own.

Opinions?

Well I was under the impression that this scenario was geared towards tank and air warfare. With primarily infantry doing the fighting which, as you rightly claim, is more historically correct you end up in a WW1 scenario where digging-in is key.
Infantry did most of the fighting but these engagements mainly consisted out of defending and mobbing up enemy pockets (the latter can not be adequately simulated in Civ3). If I understand you correctly conquering enemy territory would ultimately not result in an increase of tank output for example. Historically "enemy production capacity" was utilized for the war effort, directly by producing arms or indirectly by substituting products that freed up capacity in the main country.

I do see the appeal of this approach yet one would have to change the unit stats and perhaps increase the amount of infantry units.

 

[Samez]

If you like to do so just make some citywonders produce a special kinf of unit and make the unit itself either very expensive or unbuildable.
But you must see that conquering citites with their high defense bonus will be quite hell and you will louse millions of infantry units against bunkers or garrisons... Also terrain bonus will make attacking quite useless. All in allt he game speed would be slowed down very much. I think this scenario should reflect the big tank (panzerblitz) and airforce (long ranged bombardment) war in the last century. ... So it's your decission what to do...

 

[Simon Darkshade]

A very interesting and well constructed scenario, albeit leaning a little to the Teutonic (not in any way bad). I have enjoyed playing as Britain, and observing the wonderful range of units supplied; it was interesting to have a lot of WW1 light cruisers about to a painstaking degree of detail to the exclusion of the more modern types - Didos, Crown Colonys et al.
The level of unit detail for some of the civilisations was high and complicated; the British and Americans, to name a few, are a canvas that has more room for paint, which I did a bit of filling off my own bat.
The Kriegsmarine enjoys a qualitative edge over the RN Home Fleet, and it did seem somewhat incongruous to see them engage in pitched battle off the coast of East Anglia with the RN, and even more so to see them enjoy success in all short of capital ship engagement. Their later developments are also possessed of a capability that is greater than that of the best units available to the largest fleet in the world.
The Regia Marina is quite powerful, even without any Littorios, possessing the capability to sweep the RN from both ends of the Mediterranean; this is somewhat different from history for them.
On the question of infantry, it remained the Queen of Battle (which reminds us of the Soviet joke about artillery prior to one bombardment, as they were going to do to the German infantry what the King does to the Queen) and the key to victory.

It was more mobile than in the Great War - tankniki -, and had a lot more indigenous fire power - consider the structure of a US infantry division, with atank battalion, tank destroyers, cannon companies, chemical mortars, an abundance of artillery and a high level of lower echelon firepower (M2 .50 cal).
The Jerries also had their firepower, with several hundred LMGs, mortars and Nebelwerfers.

Armour was used successfully as part of a team, involving guns, tanks, planes and infantry; in order to take ground and hold it, infantry was required, and was in several cases very well armed and supported.
It is also well known on the German issues of complicated manufacturing and lack of fuel limiting what their armour could do.

Effectively, I see what the chap is saying regarding infantry - they cannot be treated as speed humps for the whole war if history is chosen to be adhered to.

 

[Drendor]

Recently, I've been thinking about this scenario, and how to make it more realistic, esp as Germany. As far as I can see, the main problem with it (and civIII in general) is that, unlike in RL, you are bound to have, and use, far more armored units than infantry units. As anyone can tell you, the infantry are the work-horses of any effective military.

So, I figured next time I played, I would follow the following house rule:

Only one (for each of the unit classes listed) city may build:
- Light Tanks (Panzer II, III, and IV)
- Medium Tanks (Panthers)
- Heavy Tanks (Tigers, King Tigers)
- Tank destroyers/mechanized infantry type units (Panzergrenadiers, jagdpanther, StuGIIIG, etc.
- Fighters
- Bombers
- Artillery, all types

I think this will make the game more challenging by giving me fewer fast, powerful weapons than I might have if I simply mass produced stukas and panzers. Of course, it also means that I'll have a butt-load of infantry, since they aren't all that expensive, but without too many planes or artillery, they won't be able to accomplish much on their own.

Opinions?

You could also solve this issue with unit support. Let tanks,mechs,planes and ship require unit support, lets say 6 gold per turn and unit.
Let all infantry based units be free of support

 

[psweetman1590]

Hmm, I see that a few of you might have misunderstood what I'm planning on doing. If I'm wrong and you did understand perfectly well, then forgive me.

It seems that some of you are thinking that the war would be slowed down tremendously and that it would be akin to WWI.

My answer to that is simple: It will not be. However, I would not be able to use "suicide units" - I would not be able to throw thirty tanks at a city and lose all of them (if I wanted to keep up an offensive, that is). It would force me to use a great deal of caution and discretion as to how and where I use my units. But if I manage to keep them healthy, I will have more than enough to serve my offensive needs.

In short, yes, the pace of conquest would slow down, but not nearly to the point where I would be fighting WWI again. Infantry in this scenario are deadly, not so much as the tanks, but deadly non-the-less, if used properly. I will still have an airforce and artillery to soften targets, and I will still have a small number of armored troops to get past stubborn defenders and force a breakthrough.

But what I am trying mostly to do is to get away from the 500+ panzerIII division invasions that often happen as one is playing Germany. Never happened, and unless the laws of logistics change, it never will.

That said, editing the scenario in the biq is not something I'm going to do, Samez and Drendor. First off, I do not feel that this masterpiece is mine to mangle. For another, such changes as both of you proposed would (a) be quite unbalancing (b) require a wholesale audit of the units (YIKES). So, I ain't gonna do it.

I will try this out, I can see it working quite well in my mind's eye. In the beginning, at least.... Perhaps towards the end of the game I'll need to up the # of cities that can produce mechanized units, but we'll see when I get there.

But, I'm still in the middle of a current game (also as Germany) and I don't yet have the most recent version of scenario (still working off the smaller map version). So all in all, it'll be some time before I start this experiment. Two weeks at least...

But I just wanted to hear your opinions on this. You did give me some food for thought, and now I'm that much more anxious to play it out and see how it goes. Thanks all. I'll be back.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

<snip>

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO LONG THREADS PLEASE! Im trying to read this all like omg...

 

[Baldurslayer]

It seems that some of you are thinking that the war would be slowed down tremendously and that it would be akin to WWI.

If you use lots of arty and bombers, which can be considered as pin-point arty, and then rush in the infantry that strikes me as pretty much WW1 and
not the relatively fluid warefare of WW2. Now if there was some mechanism in Civ3 that weakened units when cut off from supply I could imagine such a scheme to work pretty nicely.

In short, yes, the pace of conquest would slow down, but not nearly to the point where I would be fighting WWI again. Infantry in this scenario are deadly, not so much as the tanks, but deadly non-the-less, if used properly.

Basically You want to continue the style of fighting that the German player experiences when invading Poland, few mobile tank forces while the brunt of the attack is carried out by the infantry supported by arty and bombers.
The problem I have with this is it would take ages to get my inf in a position to attack the enemy while being vulnerable to enemy tank forces with no chance of healing my units due to traversing enemy territory. As a result I'd have to increase the number of units in the attacking stack. Hmmm, perhaps one might have to build much more 88's as a consequence ...

But what I am trying mostly to do is to get away from the 500+ panzerIII division invasions that often happen as one is playing Germany. Never happened, and unless the laws of logistics change, it never will.

I agree with you on that point, it gets even worse when you research the Pz IV H, you can upgrade all Pz IIIs and Pz F2s to a Pz IV H ...
Perhaps another idea to lessen the "500+" problem is that one is allowed as a house rule only to use the latest tank generation in an offensive while scraping the ability to upgrade. No Pz III Es in an attack when Pz III G is available; no Pz III E or G when Pz III H is available etc. With Tank generation I refer to the tech level, meaning it is OK to invade with Panthers and Pz IV H at the same time since they were researched with the same tech level. An exception would be the King Tiger only replacing the Tiger I and the Jagtpanter replacing the Stug III in offensive purposes. You'd still be able to produce whatever you wanted to bolster defences -> lots of Stug IIIs as in real life. How such a rule would translate for other nations I don't really know.
This would make me keep a sizable chunk of the obsolete tank forces as a strategic reserve or garrison forces, but I'd also scrap a great many of them in order to boost production of the latest tank generation.

Since I usually invade the SU prior them having the T-34 / KV-1 I am not quite sure how your army makeup would fare against wave after wave of soviet tanks. Yes, that was the fate of the Wehrmacht, to weather the soviet storm but it would slow down action considerably. On the small map one advanced much faster than on the big one, keep that in mind.


Other points:
With the scheme to limit the production sites for tanks, fighters, bombers etc. there is really no need to bring conquered cities up to speed taking away an important part of the game, I do get a kick out of Ankara mass producing Me 262's. On the other hand I do think you have a point, these newly acquired cities do already contribute to the treasury and the science pool and by eventually putting them on "wealth", one reduces the amount of cities that have to be micro-managed, thus speeding up the flow of the game.

With only one city producing fighters the RAF will pound you constantly since the AI is not restricted in such a way and the British Empire is vast indeed.

Personally I do play without arty (with the exception of the units provided at the start - they serve only as siege arty - to reduce fortifications). With your proposal I'd use arty like a madman ... with arty on your side the enemy has basically no chance whatsoever and that reduces the fun in an invasion almost the same way as the 500+ tanks do.

Limiting two or three cities in order to build capital ship would make some sense though, it is just plain boring to have lots of Hindenburgs ruling the waves and no real operational use for the smaller vessels except the AAA cruiser, Carriers and transports.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

The notion of limiting SOME types of unit production sites in order to stimulate greater realism is a good one - it leads to the situation where one must employ combined arms warfare, which is always useful. The AI seems to use arty properly when there are a lot of units, according to some SoE testing, which is a positive externality of this proposal.
Removing the upgrade capacity for some of the German and indeed Allied armoured units would also move the pendulum back towards combined arms.

Use of bombers (and arty) for infantry assault was the tactic for WW2, followed by exploitation by armoured spearheads. To dwell too much on the tank to the exclusion of the other arms of battle is a bridge too far. WW2 was a war that contained heavy use of the tank, not one that was dominated by it; likewise with airpower - it was the dominant factor, but required ground follow up and occupation in the west, and seizing islands for airfields in the east.

Tank strength increased during the war dramatically after the Polish Campaign, but this did not supplant the role of infantry and artillery - Panzer divisions decreased in tank numbers as the war went on, to the stage of the abteilung being the ersatz armoured force designation.

It is a game, and not an exact facsimile of history. On the other hand, it is an extraordinarily detailed mod that does go the extra yard for authenticity and content. It is interesting to contemplate the various aspects of the case.

And at that, I shall return to it, continuing on the path for a planned strategic air offensive against Germany utilizing special weapons on a mass scale. The Big One.

 

[Rocoteh]

I don't want to get too off-topic in this thread, but my work on a Python based Civ IV editor did grind to a halt in late spring.
Now, that being said there appear to be a number of editors out there in the Civ IV world.
I have seen unit editors, terrain editors, tech editors, to state a few.
But I have not see one that pulls it all together.
And my statements about creating an editor to edit python or C++ code still stands.

There are clearly some fabulous coders in the Civ IV threads, but they seemed focused on building their modpacks, not "one editor to rule them all".

I am personally tired of AI vs human Civ III, mainly because I think the AI engine's capabilities have been exhausted by people like Rocoteh, and one or two others.
He has taken the game engine to the limit, and SP games still have huge flaws, that simply cannot be overcome unless Take2 magically releases the source code or an upgraded version of Civ III. There are other existing threads to discuss the possibility of that.

I applaud the efforts of Rocoteh, who has built some brilliant scenarios. But I am very afraid that the Civ III SP scenarios have almost run their course. The same problems arise in all scenarios.
I am talking about poor AI transport, bombardment, artilllery (or lack thereof) tactics, among others.

Now, MP PBEM's, that is another matter. There is no reason that scenarios built to all human players will not continue add infintum.

If Rocoteh wants to drive himself insane converting this scenario into something with 6-10 positions, all designed to be played by humans , I believe he could create a game that would be played for years to come.
But Rocoteh does not come across as someone willing to step into the madness required to do that.

I batman,

Thank you,

On CIV IV:

I guess we will never see an editor for CIV IV like the one for CIV III.
Thus I doubt that anymore of the now active CIV III creators will
go to CIV IV.

On priority:

I decided to change priority some time ago.
Its now:

1. WW2-Global 2.3.

2. WW2-Global new multiplayer-version.

3. WW2-Global special German AI-version.

Concerning AI transport, bombardment, artilllery and so on:

I agree 100%.
As long CIV 3 is a "frozen" game-system (maybe forever) its impossible
to solve these problems.
Still I think the regular version of this scenario can be evolved further.

Thank you for your comment.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

I have read all the posts in the current dicussion with great interest.

These changes implemented (or to be implemented) will hopefully
solve some problems:

1. Mobilization no longer possible.

2. Draft removed.

3. No German Panzer-units will upgrade.

4. Increased cost (10-15%) for all armoured units.

5. Decreased cost (10-15%) for all infantry units.

6. Increased cost (15-20%) for all artillery units.

As veteran-players of WW2-Global can see, the combined effect of the
above mentioned will mean a more drastic change of the scenario then
anytime earlier!

Rocoteh

 

[El Justo]

Rocoteh,

i really like your proposed changes. i think it'll make WW2 Global even more successful despite it already being the most DL'ed scenario ever at cfc.

i like your priority list, too. an MP version of this would be superb imo. is there one already available btw? or is this a new project?