Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Also the map is a bit small. I think a bigger world map would be better. So everything is a bit too small. I know that many would complain about loading time but this is still the smaller evil.
Adler
Adler
WW2-Global
- Thread starter Rocoteh
- Start date
Adler,
Thank you for your comments. Notes have been taken.
On the map: I would also prefer a larger map.
Then there is one altarnative: 362x325.
The question is if most people will accept waiting time
between turns that will be at least 30 minutes even on fast computers.
The situation is this now:
Before Civ 4 is released I have Civ-time ( at most) to make one
more Civ 3 scenario.
Then it will be a major remake of WW2-Global on 362x325 or
WW3-Global.
Its also of course possible that this was my last Civ 3 scenario.
Rocoteh
Thank you for your comments. Notes have been taken.
On the map: I would also prefer a larger map.
Then there is one altarnative: 362x325.
The question is if most people will accept waiting time
between turns that will be at least 30 minutes even on fast computers.
The situation is this now:
Before Civ 4 is released I have Civ-time ( at most) to make one
more Civ 3 scenario.
Then it will be a major remake of WW2-Global on 362x325 or
WW3-Global.
Its also of course possible that this was my last Civ 3 scenario.
Rocoteh
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
I would be sad if this was your last scenario. Sarevok and yours were always on the top. Nevertheless I think despite the long times, and it isn´t much longer than on a bigger map, the alternative map is better.
Adler
Adler
Adler17 said:
Adler,
One scenario (Civ 3) more or not, its possible I will continue to
work with Civ 4 scenarios. The new tools that will be available
for scenario-creation with Civ 4 will decide that.
I will create a mini-map ( a specific area) of WW2-Global and present a screenshot of it here.
Rocoteh
LionQ
Noble
All right, I'll load it myself then. I think I have to something like ruiner said...Rocoteh said:
I think I'll let it load when I'm going to eat in a few hours.ruiner said:
Here are first version 1.1 stats for German and Soviet
Motorized, Tank and Tank-destroyer units. After that follow
version 1.2 stats if there have been changes:
(Shields, Attack, Defense and HP.)
Germany:
Panzergrenadier 160, 18, 26, 3,
Light Division NB, 14, 6, 2,
Pz 2 125, 18, 12, 1,
Pz 3 130, 22, 12, 2,
Pz4f2 150, 24, 14, 3,
Pz4h 170, 27, 16, 3,
Panther 250, 35, 24, 6,
SS 1943 Tiger I 400, 36, 22, 6,
SS 1944 Tiger II 750, 44, 38, 7,
StuG3G 140, 15, 26, 3,
Soviet:
Motorized Rifle Division 130, 21, 13, 2,
T-26 160, 11, 6, 1,
T-34/76 160, 24, 12, 2,
T-34/85 300, 25, 18, 2,
KV-1 240 21, 18, 2,
IS-1 350, 28, 28, 2
IS-2 450, 32, 28, 4,
Su-76M 150 , 15, 24, 3,
Su-122 180, 16, 26, 3,
Version 1.2 Changes:
Germany:
Pz 2 NB, 18, 10, 1,
Pz 3 130, 21, 13, 2,
Panther 260, 35, 24, 6,
SS 1943 Tiger I 400, 36, 32, 6,
Soviet:
Motorized Rifle Division 130, 21, 19, 2,
T-26 160, 14, 6, 1,
T-34/85 300, 29, 19, 2,
KV-1 240 23, 18, 2,
IS-1 350, 30, 28, 2
IS-2 400, 35, 28, 4,
I intend to rework the stats again and change them in version 1.3
Rocoteh
Motorized, Tank and Tank-destroyer units. After that follow
version 1.2 stats if there have been changes:
(Shields, Attack, Defense and HP.)
Germany:
Panzergrenadier 160, 18, 26, 3,
Light Division NB, 14, 6, 2,
Pz 2 125, 18, 12, 1,
Pz 3 130, 22, 12, 2,
Pz4f2 150, 24, 14, 3,
Pz4h 170, 27, 16, 3,
Panther 250, 35, 24, 6,
SS 1943 Tiger I 400, 36, 22, 6,
SS 1944 Tiger II 750, 44, 38, 7,
StuG3G 140, 15, 26, 3,
Soviet:
Motorized Rifle Division 130, 21, 13, 2,
T-26 160, 11, 6, 1,
T-34/76 160, 24, 12, 2,
T-34/85 300, 25, 18, 2,
KV-1 240 21, 18, 2,
IS-1 350, 28, 28, 2
IS-2 450, 32, 28, 4,
Su-76M 150 , 15, 24, 3,
Su-122 180, 16, 26, 3,
Version 1.2 Changes:
Germany:
Pz 2 NB, 18, 10, 1,
Pz 3 130, 21, 13, 2,
Panther 260, 35, 24, 6,
SS 1943 Tiger I 400, 36, 32, 6,
Soviet:
Motorized Rifle Division 130, 21, 19, 2,
T-26 160, 14, 6, 1,
T-34/85 300, 29, 19, 2,
KV-1 240 23, 18, 2,
IS-1 350, 30, 28, 2
IS-2 400, 35, 28, 4,
I intend to rework the stats again and change them in version 1.3
Rocoteh
Mei
Custom User Title:
Roceteh-
I don't know if this has already been sorted, but a way to avoid everyone declaring war on everyone else would be to make submarines require escort, thus eliminating the sub- bug. Unrealistic, yes, but as Germany were the only ones to really use subs to great effect (and as long as U- Boats have the require escort flag unchecked) then it would eliminate stupipd things like Holland declaring war on Spain or Brazil. Perhaps it would ruin submarines for the allies (and lots of the axis), but like I said, the only country to really use subs to great effect during the war was Germany, and as long as U- Boats are left not requiring escort units then this should still be the case.
Oh, and also, having Holland/ Low Countries in a locked alliance with the allies at the start might be a good idea, since in all the games I've played thus far Germany doesn't declare war on them at all. =\
1.2 is a lot better than previous versions though, thanks.
I don't know if this has already been sorted, but a way to avoid everyone declaring war on everyone else would be to make submarines require escort, thus eliminating the sub- bug. Unrealistic, yes, but as Germany were the only ones to really use subs to great effect (and as long as U- Boats have the require escort flag unchecked) then it would eliminate stupipd things like Holland declaring war on Spain or Brazil. Perhaps it would ruin submarines for the allies (and lots of the axis), but like I said, the only country to really use subs to great effect during the war was Germany, and as long as U- Boats are left not requiring escort units then this should still be the case.
Oh, and also, having Holland/ Low Countries in a locked alliance with the allies at the start might be a good idea, since in all the games I've played thus far Germany doesn't declare war on them at all. =\
1.2 is a lot better than previous versions though, thanks.
I think the late war equipment should have lower hit-points and higher cost because it was rare and little used.
Also:
- IS-2 should be slightly better than Tiger or Panther
- Motorized Rifle Division's stats were fine in v1.1.
- Panzer I and maybe II should have movement of 3. And T-34/85 is faster than T-34/76 so they should be 3 vs. 2 instead of 2 vs. 3 movement. Tiger II was slow so maybe movement of 1 is more accurate
- Su-122 was mainly artillery so it shouldn't have any substantial attack
Just my opinion.
Also:
- IS-2 should be slightly better than Tiger or Panther
- Motorized Rifle Division's stats were fine in v1.1.
- Panzer I and maybe II should have movement of 3. And T-34/85 is faster than T-34/76 so they should be 3 vs. 2 instead of 2 vs. 3 movement. Tiger II was slow so maybe movement of 1 is more accurate
- Su-122 was mainly artillery so it shouldn't have any substantial attack
Just my opinion.
Infantry units have movement 1... Even if the Tiger II was slow i'm pretty sure it was faster/had more endurance than an infantry man... So i think it should have a movement of 2...mircea74 said:
I think you should add Attu, Kiska and Dutch Harbor as cities in WW2-Global, Rocoteh...
LionQ
Noble
I get errors about "PediaIcons". 
LionQ said:I get errors about "PediaIcons".
LionQ,
Have you placed both the folder and the the biq-file in
the scenarios-folder of Conquest?
I ask since its very easy to do a mistake and place it in
the scenarios folder of Civ 3 instead.
In fact I think 90% of reported install-problems is due to that.
Rocoteh
LionQ
Noble
Yep, I did.
Mei,
I am glad to hear that you think 1.2 is better than previous
versions. Its possible I will place Holland/Belgium in a locked
alliance with the Western Allies in version 1.3.
Mircea74,
On IS-2. Again the units represents division-sizes formations
in most cases.
Motorized Rifle divisions will be less powerful in version 1.3.
On suggested move-changes. I have considered that also.
However since 1 turn = 1 week it would give a move-cap.
to these units that I think is to high.
Su-122 was also used as Tank-destroyer though.
Rocoteh
I am glad to hear that you think 1.2 is better than previous
versions. Its possible I will place Holland/Belgium in a locked
alliance with the Western Allies in version 1.3.
Mircea74,
On IS-2. Again the units represents division-sizes formations
in most cases.
Motorized Rifle divisions will be less powerful in version 1.3.
On suggested move-changes. I have considered that also.
However since 1 turn = 1 week it would give a move-cap.
to these units that I think is to high.
Su-122 was also used as Tank-destroyer though.
Rocoteh
P.S.Y.C.H.O.,
Attu, Kiska and Dutch Harbor.
I will look at that with regard to version 1.3.
LionQ,
With the error-message you report its hard to see any other reason.
If someone can present another solution to the problem,
please post it here.
Rocoteh
Attu, Kiska and Dutch Harbor.
I will look at that with regard to version 1.3.
LionQ,
With the error-message you report its hard to see any other reason.
If someone can present another solution to the problem,
please post it here.
Rocoteh
mircea74 said:
I have to say this is an excellent idea!
One problem with historical scenarios in Civ3 has been that the winning side always gets stronger and stronger by gaining cities and getting more production power. What we know from history is that the end game war is always hard on resources. Germany was heavily depleted of resources in the end of the war thus it just couldn't produce new units at the same rate as at the top height of it's producing power.
Like with almost every new technology we follow the same formula. At first the technology is very expensive to produce, but as new research is done the production line gets optimized. But if we are cut from the basic resources needed for production? We have to develop new materials to make our product from. That is more expensive! Germany was very good at this, but they just couldn't made it affordable.
So in an ideal scenario the production cost of new units (new tech) would escalate. We do have "war weariness" and corruption which should do the work, but as we all know it doesn't do it without unwanted and "un-fun" elements.
The other problem with the current game is that the AI isn't that evolwed. The AI of Civ3 is very aware of the cost of units. In a way it just isn't stupid enough.
It won't produce units that are so much more expensive to produce even if they have more "fire power". The AI is very careful about this. The AI stays with the less powerful units if they are cheaper to produce.I just hope the developers of Civ4 are tackling this problem. If we had a tool that would disable the old units when new tech is developed we could have more realistic "war weariness". I would love to see this in Civ.
To Rocoteh,
You still have my support for all your scenarios. I just haven't been able to participate in the Civ scene so actively recently.
Dazz_G
Emperor
I get home from holidays and find that the scenario we have all been waiting for has arrived ... and been updated twice already. Only downside is that I don't fancy wading through all 16 pages of posts that have been made already !!!
I've downloaded and fired it up straight away.
Game setup time was 33 minutes on a P4 2.4Gig with just 256 Ram ... I can settle for that
Started first turn as Germany and what can I say ... WOW doesn't even cover it. It took me 80 minutes just to do the first turn !
Computer turn took 18 minutes which again is acceptable, bearing in mind the lack of RAM.
I'm only a few turns into this so I can't really give much feedback except to say i'm really enjoying it ... i'll give feedback in due course.
One thing I would say is that I would like to see a bigger map ... I think for a game of this scale there aren't really enough cities and those there are are a bit too close together.
I would also really like to see a multiplayer version of this as the AI is a bit weird to say the least ... I have just witnessed France knocking on Milan's door only for Benni to decide that, rather than engage the French forces at Milan, he would rather pack his bags and head off for a week of sightseeing in Copenhagen along with virtually the entire Italian Army
In short, I expected a lot from this scenario and I have to say you surpassed my expectations by quite a margin ... great stuff
EDIT : With a view to slowing down the Germans, how about starting with the BEF stationed on French soil ... you will wait a long time for the AI to effectively land the BEF by sea.
I've downloaded and fired it up straight away.
Game setup time was 33 minutes on a P4 2.4Gig with just 256 Ram ... I can settle for that
Started first turn as Germany and what can I say ... WOW doesn't even cover it. It took me 80 minutes just to do the first turn !
Computer turn took 18 minutes which again is acceptable, bearing in mind the lack of RAM.
I'm only a few turns into this so I can't really give much feedback except to say i'm really enjoying it ... i'll give feedback in due course.
One thing I would say is that I would like to see a bigger map ... I think for a game of this scale there aren't really enough cities and those there are are a bit too close together.
I would also really like to see a multiplayer version of this as the AI is a bit weird to say the least ... I have just witnessed France knocking on Milan's door only for Benni to decide that, rather than engage the French forces at Milan, he would rather pack his bags and head off for a week of sightseeing in Copenhagen along with virtually the entire Italian Army
In short, I expected a lot from this scenario and I have to say you surpassed my expectations by quite a margin ... great stuff
EDIT : With a view to slowing down the Germans, how about starting with the BEF stationed on French soil ... you will wait a long time for the AI to effectively land the BEF by sea.
laisak,
Thank you for your comments.
I will have the ideas and reflections mentioned here
in mind when working with new versions of WW2-Global.
I hope you will find to post in this thread and comment on WW2-Global,
as you did in the TGW and Barbarossa-threads.
That would be of great value.
Rocoteh
Thank you for your comments.
I will have the ideas and reflections mentioned here
in mind when working with new versions of WW2-Global.
I hope you will find to post in this thread and comment on WW2-Global,
as you did in the TGW and Barbarossa-threads.
That would be of great value.
Rocoteh
Dazz G,
Thank you. Really good to hear that you think WW2-Global
had the quality you expected.
I agree, 18 minutes waiting time is not bad, considering 256 MB RAM.
With 1 GB RAM I think it will be reduced to 6-7 minutes.
I will probably make a version with bigger map. There will also
be a multiplayer version. Here Germany and Italy will be one Civ.
Thus I can convert Civs like Argentina, Chile and Sweden to "Neutrals"
like in TGW-DIV Multiplayer.
Using a reworked version of the WW2-Global map instead of a
new 180x180 map I still hope to find time for WW3-Global.
Units will be: divisions, squadrons (25 planes in most cases) and
single ships.
Your idea on BEF in France is very good.
I will implement it in version 1.3.
Rocoteh
Thank you. Really good to hear that you think WW2-Global
had the quality you expected.
I agree, 18 minutes waiting time is not bad, considering 256 MB RAM.
With 1 GB RAM I think it will be reduced to 6-7 minutes.
I will probably make a version with bigger map. There will also
be a multiplayer version. Here Germany and Italy will be one Civ.
Thus I can convert Civs like Argentina, Chile and Sweden to "Neutrals"
like in TGW-DIV Multiplayer.
Using a reworked version of the WW2-Global map instead of a
new 180x180 map I still hope to find time for WW3-Global.
Units will be: divisions, squadrons (25 planes in most cases) and
single ships.
Your idea on BEF in France is very good.
I will implement it in version 1.3.
Rocoteh
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Way better.
Adler
Adler
Similar threads
- Sticky
