*nix* said:Another great one propably. I really enjoyed Barbarossa. I simply cannot find the Biq file for this scenario - WWII World. Help me, please. I dying here.
As i said - i'm new to this.
Nix
it is on the first post
WW2-Global
- Thread starter Rocoteh
- Start date
it is on the first post
*nix* said:I have recently discoverede this fantastic site and have alreade enjoyed hours of gaming beceause of it (not to mention the hours spent on the site)! So a big thanks to all those entusiastic civplayers and creators out there.
To Rocotech
Another great one propably. I really enjoyed Barbarossa. I simply cannot find the Biq file for this scenario - WWII World. Help me, please. I dying here.
As i said - i'm new to this.
Nix
Nix,
Welcome to CFC.
You will find the biq file at the first post of the Barbarossa-thread.
Its the BRB1.1.zip and you will see it if you scroll down the page.
Welcome back.
Rocoteh
Sasebo,
Thank you the report and comments.
"Protect the BBs from subs??? Ah, I don't think you need to worry about that,it takes like 5-6 to even dent them! You would lose around 9-12 at least killing one, it is not at all cost effective. If you can't stealth attack BB then subs have no chance vs. capital class ships! I used maybe half a dozen to weaken enemy BBs so my own BB can take them down,but it isn't cheap. So... even if no ships can see subs,won't we still be able to use other units to kill them once we do find them? I admit it sounds worth trying anyway"
Sasebo
That is very interesting. Then in version 1.3 probably only Destroyers will
be able to see Submarines and avoid stealth-attacks.
"No problems here with more graphics, could we get something more appropriate for the combat engineers? they look silly in those rags. What are ANZAC Infantry, I mean what will be their stats/function? UK already has Infantry and MG units" Sasebo
I will try to find a new graphic for combat engineers. ANZAC forces will
be autoproduced and have these stats: Attack 11 Defense 12 Move 2
and ignore move cost of Jungle.
Very interesting that Germany-AI moves more aggressive now.
I am really looking forward to follow this report.
Thank you and welcome back.
Rocoteh
Thank you the report and comments.
"Protect the BBs from subs??? Ah, I don't think you need to worry about that,it takes like 5-6 to even dent them! You would lose around 9-12 at least killing one, it is not at all cost effective. If you can't stealth attack BB then subs have no chance vs. capital class ships! I used maybe half a dozen to weaken enemy BBs so my own BB can take them down,but it isn't cheap. So... even if no ships can see subs,won't we still be able to use other units to kill them once we do find them? I admit it sounds worth trying anyway"
Sasebo
That is very interesting. Then in version 1.3 probably only Destroyers will
be able to see Submarines and avoid stealth-attacks.
"No problems here with more graphics, could we get something more appropriate for the combat engineers? they look silly in those rags. What are ANZAC Infantry, I mean what will be their stats/function? UK already has Infantry and MG units" Sasebo
I will try to find a new graphic for combat engineers. ANZAC forces will
be autoproduced and have these stats: Attack 11 Defense 12 Move 2
and ignore move cost of Jungle.
Very interesting that Germany-AI moves more aggressive now.
I am really looking forward to follow this report.
Thank you and welcome back.
Rocoteh
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
I would recommend to give Uboats the chance to sink a BB in open waters. So give their attack a few less than a BB.
Adler
Adler
Dazz_G
Emperor
Adler17 said:
I agree with this ... a Stealthy Sub could sink just about anything but the very best ratio I achieved was 3 subs lost to sink a battleship and I think I was VERY lucky there.
Dazz_G
Emperor
How about adopting 55 attack factor but make them incredibly expensive.
I don't fancy anyone being able to get 55 attack units from Autoproduction ...
I don't fancy anyone being able to get 55 attack units from Autoproduction ...
Dazz_G said:
Dazz_G,
This is the problem as I see it:
Germany produced more than 1 000 U-Boats during WW-2.
2 of these U-Boats sunk (operating alone) the British Battleships
Royal Oak and Barham. (Britain had 15 Battleships and Battlecruisers
when WW2 started.)
Thus, no doubt single U-Boats could sink Battleships and Carriers.
All U-Boats was cheap to build (in relative terms).
U-Boats and Submarines were very powerful weapon systems.
However I do not want to make them "super-units", since that
would be unrealistic.
A high price-tag is not realistic, but one can argue that the
real-effect is better than auto-production.
Thus I will consider that option.
Rocoteh
If you have problems with installing WW2-Global, please follow
this step by stepby step instruction to locate the correct Scenario-folder.
1 Left-click on the Civilization III folder.
2 Left-click on the Conquests folder.
3 You will now see the Conquests folder with all the standard scenarios,
such as Age of Discovery, Ancient Treasures and so on.
4 Under the Conquests folder with its scenarios you will see the folders:
redist and Saves.
5 Then after that you have the Scenarios folder where both the
downloaded folder and the biq-file should be placed.
I mention this, since if you seldom or never look in the CIVIII/Conquests
directory its easy to do a mistake and place the downloaded folder
and file in the Scenario folder of CIVIII instead. (Its only some folders
below first mentioned folders.)
In fact here posted error-reports indicate that the vast majoriy of
install problems is due that downloads are placed in wrong Scenario-folder.
Rocoteh
this step by stepby step instruction to locate the correct Scenario-folder.
1 Left-click on the Civilization III folder.
2 Left-click on the Conquests folder.
3 You will now see the Conquests folder with all the standard scenarios,
such as Age of Discovery, Ancient Treasures and so on.
4 Under the Conquests folder with its scenarios you will see the folders:
redist and Saves.
5 Then after that you have the Scenarios folder where both the
downloaded folder and the biq-file should be placed.
I mention this, since if you seldom or never look in the CIVIII/Conquests
directory its easy to do a mistake and place the downloaded folder
and file in the Scenario folder of CIVIII instead. (Its only some folders
below first mentioned folders.)
In fact here posted error-reports indicate that the vast majoriy of
install problems is due that downloads are placed in wrong Scenario-folder.
Rocoteh
KristiB said:I think the subs as they are are fine in combat as far as their values... I would just like overall fewer naval units, including subs...
KristiB,
Notes have been taken.
This is the current planning for WW2-Global:
I will correct all known bugs. Then many of the changes here
suggested will be implemented.
This will be released in version 1.3.
Version 1.4 will probably be released 4-6 weeks later.
It will include a great graphic expansion.
I guess the expansion will be in the 40-50 MB range.
Rocoteh
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Well I love naval fights and so must strongly disagree with KristiB.
Adler
Adler
allin1joe
Prince
I love Naval fights as well. However, I am playing as the Americans. I probably have 50% of my Pacific fleet fortified off my Western coast, as well as some protecting Hawaii and the Panama Canal. The rest effectively wiped out the Japanese Navy. I am in early 1940. So, the American Navy might be a bit overpowered, but that is probably historically accurate, and why the Japanese felt they needed to bomb Pearl Harbor when they did.
Oh, I haven't even moved my Atlantic fleet yet. I'm letting Britian and France worry about Europe right now
Oh, I haven't even moved my Atlantic fleet yet. I'm letting Britian and France worry about Europe right now
bogdanSUPERIUS
Go Philly Go
Good point, me too.. Coz there is too few scens where is possible to so many naval fights but which though are my favorits..Adler17 said:
I also love naval fights... A while ago someone suggested the "Kido Butai" (the japanese task force that attacked Perl Harbor) should be positioned at the same spot it were when it attacked Pearl Harbor, but at the start of the game... I think that was a pretty good suggestion, that way the US Pacific fleet wouldn't be so overpowered...
Dazz_G
Emperor
I'm in favour of P.S.Y.C.H.O's suggestion ... it would be the better option versus reducing the initial size of the American Fleet.
eric_A
Deity
Rocoteh:
This is how I handled this issue in my scenario:
All capital ships, which includes battleships, aircraft carriers and
light carriers in TOS represent a single ship. As such, these units are
vulnerable to a single critical hit, like the one the doomed the Prince
of Wales. All capital ships have a -1 hit point modifier which means a
veteran battleship will have fewer hit points than a veteran heavy cruiser.
In TOS a cruiser unit represents 2 ships, while each destroyer or sub
actually represents a flotilla.
Note: battleships have lethal sea bombardment in TOS.
So in TOS a damaged BB unit can easily be sunk by a single sub,
even a full strenght one will go down to a single sub ocassionally.
If the BB is regular and the sub is elite, it has about a 50/50 chance
of taking it out.
I even saw once a PT boat with a 3 attack factor take out a Super
BB (Yamato class, defence of 25) which had been redlined by dive bombers.
Hopefully you will find this useful.
Eric
This is how I handled this issue in my scenario:
All capital ships, which includes battleships, aircraft carriers and
light carriers in TOS represent a single ship. As such, these units are
vulnerable to a single critical hit, like the one the doomed the Prince
of Wales. All capital ships have a -1 hit point modifier which means a
veteran battleship will have fewer hit points than a veteran heavy cruiser.
In TOS a cruiser unit represents 2 ships, while each destroyer or sub
actually represents a flotilla.
Note: battleships have lethal sea bombardment in TOS.
So in TOS a damaged BB unit can easily be sunk by a single sub,
even a full strenght one will go down to a single sub ocassionally.
If the BB is regular and the sub is elite, it has about a 50/50 chance
of taking it out.
I even saw once a PT boat with a 3 attack factor take out a Super
BB (Yamato class, defence of 25) which had been redlined by dive bombers.
Hopefully you will find this useful.
Eric
Concerning naval units:
I have read all the posts concerning naval units in WW2-Global
and will sum up how I reason about the naval aspect in future
versions of the scenario.
"This is how I handled this issue in my scenario:
All capital ships, which includes battleships, aircraft carriers and
light carriers in TOS represent a single ship. As such, these units are
vulnerable to a single critical hit, like the one the doomed the Prince
of Wales. All capital ships have a -1 hit point modifier which means a
veteran battleship will have fewer hit points than a veteran heavy cruiser.
In TOS a cruiser unit represents 2 ships, while each destroyer or sub
actually represents a flotilla." eric_A
It sounds very good I think. TGW uses a flotilla system that I also
thinks works good.
Its possible there will be a system with naval units representing
several ships in the future. Feedback and reactions from players
will be important for how WW2-Global evolves.
With regard to version 1.3 and 1.4 I will stay with the current:
1 naval unit=1 ship.
In the game-engine there is no ASW or ranged combat so
the best have to be done within the current limits.
(I mean: In a naval wargame combat will take place at short,
medium range or long range, thus giving capital ships a realistic edge.)
One could solve the problem with ranged combat by giving all
Battleships and Heavy Cruisers Range 2. Since one tile in WW2-global
represent a huge area its not realistic in that way.
(Note I know that the 203 mm guns of a Heavy Cruiser is outranged by
a Battleship, but giving Battleships Range 3 is probably a step to far.)
If their Bombard was lethal it would bring in range into the game.
New strategys would evolve.
One heavy factor speaks against the above said: Naval units can move,
bombard and then move again. Thus playtesting have to be done before
you know if this system will work.
I return to 1 naval unit = 1 ship versus 1 naval unit = several ships again:
If one look to accurate stats I think that is easier to achieve in
WW2-Global than in TGW. Take for example the Pre-Dreadnought
Squadron (4 ships) in TGW. I think it should be stronger, but if I make
it stronger it will be able to crush Dreadnoughts. That was not the
case during WW1. With the WW2-global system there are no such problems.
"I also love naval fights... A while ago someone suggested the "Kido Butai" (the japanese task force that attacked Perl Harbor) should be positioned at the same spot it were when it attacked Pearl Harbor, but at the start of the game... I think that was a pretty good suggestion, that way the US Pacific fleet wouldn't be so overpowered..." P.S.Y.C.H.O.
In such a case it would be the original Japanese Carrier force -2 Carriers
since only Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu and Soryu were in service September 1939.
Before I decide I will make a playtest to see how much damage a such initial set up will cause US.
More suggestions on how to improve the current naval system is
of course welcome.
Rocoteh
I have read all the posts concerning naval units in WW2-Global
and will sum up how I reason about the naval aspect in future
versions of the scenario.
"This is how I handled this issue in my scenario:
All capital ships, which includes battleships, aircraft carriers and
light carriers in TOS represent a single ship. As such, these units are
vulnerable to a single critical hit, like the one the doomed the Prince
of Wales. All capital ships have a -1 hit point modifier which means a
veteran battleship will have fewer hit points than a veteran heavy cruiser.
In TOS a cruiser unit represents 2 ships, while each destroyer or sub
actually represents a flotilla." eric_A
It sounds very good I think. TGW uses a flotilla system that I also
thinks works good.
Its possible there will be a system with naval units representing
several ships in the future. Feedback and reactions from players
will be important for how WW2-Global evolves.
With regard to version 1.3 and 1.4 I will stay with the current:
1 naval unit=1 ship.
In the game-engine there is no ASW or ranged combat so
the best have to be done within the current limits.
(I mean: In a naval wargame combat will take place at short,
medium range or long range, thus giving capital ships a realistic edge.)
One could solve the problem with ranged combat by giving all
Battleships and Heavy Cruisers Range 2. Since one tile in WW2-global
represent a huge area its not realistic in that way.
(Note I know that the 203 mm guns of a Heavy Cruiser is outranged by
a Battleship, but giving Battleships Range 3 is probably a step to far.)
If their Bombard was lethal it would bring in range into the game.
New strategys would evolve.
One heavy factor speaks against the above said: Naval units can move,
bombard and then move again. Thus playtesting have to be done before
you know if this system will work.
I return to 1 naval unit = 1 ship versus 1 naval unit = several ships again:
If one look to accurate stats I think that is easier to achieve in
WW2-Global than in TGW. Take for example the Pre-Dreadnought
Squadron (4 ships) in TGW. I think it should be stronger, but if I make
it stronger it will be able to crush Dreadnoughts. That was not the
case during WW1. With the WW2-global system there are no such problems.
"I also love naval fights... A while ago someone suggested the "Kido Butai" (the japanese task force that attacked Perl Harbor) should be positioned at the same spot it were when it attacked Pearl Harbor, but at the start of the game... I think that was a pretty good suggestion, that way the US Pacific fleet wouldn't be so overpowered..." P.S.Y.C.H.O.
In such a case it would be the original Japanese Carrier force -2 Carriers
since only Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu and Soryu were in service September 1939.
Before I decide I will make a playtest to see how much damage a such initial set up will cause US.
More suggestions on how to improve the current naval system is
of course welcome.
Rocoteh
Mei
Custom User Title:
It's been a while since my last update, so...
LATE 1939.
The turn after my last report, Germany declared war on Holland! Both Amsterdam and Brussles fell within two turns, but I moved my tank/ infantry force over the channel in a transport and now control Amsterdam, though the relentless attacks have meant I have pulled my tanks out and have only garrisoned two British Infantry as to avoid massive losses.
The USSR is fighting Germany (as are Norway/ Denmark) but in both of those wars, nothing has really happened. =\
Italy's fleet is being quiet- but as I took Sicaly with an amphibious squad from Malta I think I may have sunk a few ships! Spain is now at war with pretty much everyone, including myself, and their attacks on Gibralter promoted a regular unit to vet and elite in one turn, then popped an MGl, who is now locked in Gibralter until Spain is overrun.
I control Italian North Africa, though Abbysinia is holding out somewhat, with my units there not being able to make further progress.
Miliatrily I'm strapped for men- I have lots of units, but I can only send out minimal forces against enemies, though this is usually enough.
Regarding Japan, I am still unable to make progress, but they have taken Foochow and can attack Hong Kong if they wanted to, so a couple of Indian units have been sent over there to support the garrison. I'm not going to make an actual assault until I get some stronger weapons, but if I can hold onto Hong Kong it should prove useful for attacking the mainland of Japan.
The German AI has done nothing against my resource- razing (they now have no resources whatsoever, except those they import) and seem to be living without any roads, or ships, though they have managed to destroy a fortress (!) in the Manginot Line.
That's all so far. I'll try and update a bit sooner next time!
LATE 1939.
The turn after my last report, Germany declared war on Holland! Both Amsterdam and Brussles fell within two turns, but I moved my tank/ infantry force over the channel in a transport and now control Amsterdam, though the relentless attacks have meant I have pulled my tanks out and have only garrisoned two British Infantry as to avoid massive losses.
The USSR is fighting Germany (as are Norway/ Denmark) but in both of those wars, nothing has really happened. =\
Italy's fleet is being quiet- but as I took Sicaly with an amphibious squad from Malta I think I may have sunk a few ships! Spain is now at war with pretty much everyone, including myself, and their attacks on Gibralter promoted a regular unit to vet and elite in one turn, then popped an MGl, who is now locked in Gibralter until Spain is overrun.
I control Italian North Africa, though Abbysinia is holding out somewhat, with my units there not being able to make further progress.
Miliatrily I'm strapped for men- I have lots of units, but I can only send out minimal forces against enemies, though this is usually enough.
Regarding Japan, I am still unable to make progress, but they have taken Foochow and can attack Hong Kong if they wanted to, so a couple of Indian units have been sent over there to support the garrison. I'm not going to make an actual assault until I get some stronger weapons, but if I can hold onto Hong Kong it should prove useful for attacking the mainland of Japan.
The German AI has done nothing against my resource- razing (they now have no resources whatsoever, except those they import) and seem to be living without any roads, or ships, though they have managed to destroy a fortress (!) in the Manginot Line.
That's all so far. I'll try and update a bit sooner next time!
