WW2-Global

[Cowabunga]

Rocoteh,

I started reading this thread from the beginning, but I'm only up to message 1641, so I apologize if a later message addressed what I'm going to report.

I'm playing version 1.5 as the Germans. Driving deeply into SU east of Urals, I observed Russian troops abandoning their cities (2) in Siberia around Irkutsk and razing them! I have been playing CIVIII since it came out and I've never seen the AI raze its own cities before. It certainly is historic: Stalin's scorched earth policy in the Ukraine.

Also a Uboat on patrol inside Canadian waters in Hudson Bay observed a SAG of Brazilian ships intrude into Canadian waters at the northern entrance of Hudson Bay and run into a pack of American subs. A declaration of war followed. What surprised me was Brazil brazenly violating Canandian waters, which had already been intruded upon by an American wolfpack!

This is a wonderful scenario and I thank you and all of the play testers for doing such a great job.

Very respectfully,

Cowabunga

 

[clearbeard]

I'm playing version 1.5 as the Germans. Driving deeply into SU east of Urals, I observed Russian troops abandoning their cities (2) in Siberia around Irkutsk and razing them! I have been playing CIVIII since it came out and I've never seen the AI raze its own cities before. It certainly is historic: Stalin's scorched earth policy in the Ukraine.

I've seen Japanese troops invade that area and raze Soviet cities, are you sure that's not what's happening?

 

[vlad1917_a]

One more proposal to consider
Segregate research for each side.
1) Make one general line avaialble for everybody.
2) Make 3 other lines dependent on general line
separetly for Axis Allies and Russia.

Well very hard to implement

 

[Cowabunga]

Has anyone else noted obscenely long waits when a city builds a harbor or airport? Not just in this scenario (though it's about the longest I've personally experienced) but in most games with lots of cities. Perhaps it was a mistake to buy harbors in each and every British city that didn't have one on turn 2.

Clearbeard,

I've noticed not only that, but also when an airfield or harbor is destroyed by bombardment, there is an intermable wait for the results to be posted. That is not a function of this scenario, that is unfortunately a function of all the CIV III variants.

There must be something about those improvements that requires extra processing from the computer.

Very respectfully,

Cowabunga

 

[Cowabunga]

I've seen Japanese troops invade that area and raze Soviet cities, are you sure that's not what's happening?

Clearbeard,

I've seen the Japanese raze cities in that area as well, but in this case, I observed three Soviet infantry depart a size one city twice. In each case, they razed it.
Very interesting...

V/r

Cowabunga

 

[vlad1917_a]

Has anyone else noted obscenely long waits when a city builds a harbor or airport?
---
There must be something about those improvements that requires extra processing from the computer.

Very respectfully,

Cowabunga

The civ.exe recaluclates all trade routes. Even with advanced graph algorithm it will require huge proceesing for that number of nodes(cities) and connection between them.

 

[Rocoteh]

After installing a new firewall I have had severe problems with
the ADSL-connection. The problems have not been solved when writing this.

I hope I will be back tomorrow with comments on posts.

Rocoteh

 

[oljb007]

tisk tisk tisk---

another victim of XP SP2 firewall!

LOL

 

[vlad1917_a]

Break research on 3 ages
Age 1 Axis domination. 40-42
Age 2 Turnaround. 43-44
Abe 3 Allies strike back. 45
Here is proposed tech tree for the Age 1.
Square and Curved general tree
Square required for advance to next, Curved does not.

All nation's specific is optional
Axis cultural group is green
Allies cultural group is blue
Russians are red.

The first research in age 2 should give Mobilization and Draft to Germans and It should be free for them Others should have M&D from begining.

The proposed logic
During first 3 years:
Axis have advance over everybody except German luck Cariers and Japan have problem with motor units. So move them apart.

Russia have problem with air and naval (almost no naval). So move them apart for Russians. Russian have greate production so add somthing for russian either ability to use citisen as production and as NkVD corruption fighters or Add specific cheap factory for russian

Allies have good air but problem with ground units and sub diffence move that apart.

Here is a tree:
Break research on 3 ages
Age 1 Axis domination. 40-42
Age 2 Turnaround. 43-44
Abe 3 Allies strike back. 45
Here is proposed tech tree for the Age 1.
Square and Curved general tree
Square required for advance to next, Curved does not.

All nation's specific is optional
Axis cultural group is green
Allies cultural group is blue
Russians are red.

The first research in age 2 should give Mobilization and Draft to Germans and It should be free for them Others should have M&D from begining.

The proposed logic
During first 3 years:
Axis have advance over everybody except German luck Cariers and Japan have problem with motor units. So move them apart.

Russia have problem with air and naval (almost no naval). So move them apart for Russians. Russian have greate production so add somthing for russian either ability to use citisen as production and as NkVD corruption fighters or Add specific cheap factory for russian

Allies have good air but problem with ground units and sub diffence move that apart.

Here is a tree:

How I can put image right into the forum so it will be visiable and no body have to click on it?

 

[oljb007]

i'll just say it: changing the tech tree structure is not an option. I doubt Rocotech will have the time nor the desire to redo that. The implications would be huge, and the whole balancing issue would basically start over.

I think the idea of self imposed restrictions is the best bet at this stage of the game/play testing.

Long story short: with the current game engine and the "choice" of civs to play there will always be inbalances! The AI just cant play the way a human does. IT WILL NEVER BE BALANCED.

If you want to try and balance it beyond where it is currently, then you have two options, self imposed restrictions or unique scenarios for each civ. The latter being quite difficult and not an option as per Rocoteh himself (i already suggested it) However, you are welcome to set it up yourself as a few people here are doing with the use of armies and AI specific units.

Oh and lets not forget that balancing the game is different for different levels of play. Thus introducing a whole other level of complexity.

not trying to bash anyones Idea, as I think the tech tree would be really cool if it were different for different civs but...... the practicality just isn't there. Maybe there is a compromise I dont know as I am not that great with scenario building. :S

 

[vlad1917_a]

i'll just say it: changing the tech tree structure is not an option. I doubt Rocotech will have the time nor the desire to redo that. The implications would be huge, and the whole balancing issue would basically start over.

I think the idea of self imposed restrictions is the best bet at this stage of the game/play testing.

Long story short: with the current game engine and the "choice" of civs to play there will always be inbalances! The AI just cant play the way a human does. IT WILL NEVER BE BALANCED.

If you want to try and balance it beyond where it is currently, then you have two options, self imposed restrictions or unique scenarios for each civ. The latter being quite difficult and not an option as per Rocoteh himself (i already suggested it) However, you are welcome to set it up yourself as a few people here are doing with the use of armies and AI specific units.

Oh and lets not forget that balancing the game is different for different levels of play. Thus introducing a whole other level of complexity.

not trying to bash anyones Idea, as I think the tech tree would be really cool if it were different for different civs but...... the practicality just isn't there. Maybe there is a compromise I dont know as I am not that great with scenario building. :S

That is not about restrictions. That is make research valuable. I am winning this game without research = 0. WHoever I play i do not care. If something happen and Germans come strong I just spy alll there staff and I am up there,

Regarding starting rebalancing over agian. The test players is most fans of that scenario. I would love to play my favorite scenario over again.
The whole idea is to have all civs unique. You can do it by creating different Units different buildings,
But You can make them different if you impose differnet research story and if you research will be different on different ages. The research gives u different abilities at different time. It is fun. If Germans got TAnk 18/10 and russian got taNK 17/11 there is no difference in game play for me. The difference is in directions

 

[Sasebo]

Vlad, and Grizx; I know you guys like the larger powers, but before you go changing everything wholesale like that, please try some of the smaller countries. I think some of your ideas would make it veeeeery tough on them. Italy is worth playing, and I would love to see somebody wipe out most of Russia by week 51 on Sid with them; I don't think it can be done.

I'm thinking I made a BIG mistake trying Italy on Sid; I know I am a heavy builder-type but I seem to have hit a brick wall. If it wasn't for Japan the Axis would be stymied on all fronts just about. It is week 5 ,1940 and the French STILL have Paris. Damn Soviets keep hitting German subs in the English Channel and starting wars. I am stretched out and being attacked everywhere,including the French near Milan now. I am holding them off, but holding them off is not Winning. I hold East Africa only by virtue of the entire bomber force being deployed to Addis Abebba. Have sank almost 15 DDF and yet they still keep coming, along with BB/CA. I have no idea where England is getting them all from. My SS and CL are all but gone wiping out most of the DDFs. I MAY be able to turn this around but it hinges on my cities finally getting around to full production and me taking out the Suez Canal without losing everything else. That would help a ton! I was thinking of droping the game, but I will probably stay the course for at least a little longer...

 

[vlad1917_a]

Vlad, and Grizx; I know you guys like the larger powers, but before you go changing everything wholesale like that, please try some of the smaller countries. I think some of your ideas would make it veeeeery tough on them. Italy is worth playing, and I would love to see somebody wipe out most of Russia by week 51 on Sid with them; I don't think it can be done.

I am win on SID for Germany, Japan, Russia(old), France, China. Now I am playing Finns Sweden is mine.
I think Finn objective should be concuer Sweden, Norway and Leningrad with Murmansk.

I will try Italy next. Will See where I will end. By the way changes proposed does not affect Italy

 

[Grizx]

Sasebo,

I think you are wrong in saying that I advocate wholesale changes. I think the scenario is very good as it is and too many more changes would actually hurt it. I personally think that relativley minor adjustments are all that are needed. Besides, Rocoteh is probably going to want to put a wrap on this scenario soon anyway.

With a good basic scenario, people can always adjust unit strengths, reassign cities, and change terrain by themselves in the editor. The whole point of my suggestions on self-imposed restrictions is to point out a possible way to avoid making too many changes to the scenario.

You are, however, correct that my comments are focused on the major powers. And yes, playing Italy, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands or China at SID level is very probably a non starter. France - perhaps. And to be honest, the prospect of playing those countries does not really motivate me.

I tend to see the scenario in somewhat strict historical terms with Germany, Japan, USA, USSR, and Britain as the main components of the secenario and the rest in a significantly less important supporting role providing historical, geogrpahical, and geopolitical context.

My main interest is that if I am playing Britain, I want the German AI to be a very challenging oponent. If I am playing Germany I want Britain, USSR and the US to be powerful and effective AI opponents. I therefore believe the scenrio parameters should give the AI's all they need to run those countries in the best way possible given the limitations of the game engine.

While playing some of the lesser powers may be interesting and a challenge, I just think the main focus of the scenario should be an exciting and challenging game between the major powers.

But that is just my opinion. Others have far more experience in designing scenarios and developing this scenario than I do. Heck, I have never designed any scenario, so I probably I have no idea what I'm talking about. Please take my comments as observations from a newbie player and put them in that context.

Whatever, it is absolutley not my intent to propose lots of wholsale changes to an already outstanding scenario. And my apologies if I am causing confusion or heartburn.

Grizx

 

[Adler17]

Concerning mobilization: I don´t use it because of the reason I can´t build everything in the current scenario.
Concerning drafting: Drafting is very good to get some good garrison troops very fast. I would have a garrison problem if drafting is not allowed. Another option would be a building producing German security divisions every turn in each city but I think that would unbalance the game much more. So IMO drafting should stay in each of the powers.

Adler

 

[clearbeard]

Concerning mobilization: I don´t use it because of the reason I can´t build everything in the current scenario.
Concerning drafting: Drafting is very good to get some good garrison troops very fast. I would have a garrison problem if drafting is not allowed. Another option would be a building producing German security divisions every turn in each city but I think that would unbalance the game much more. So IMO drafting should stay in each of the powers.

Adler

How about changing the draftable unit from infantry to security divisions, if a change is warranted? You'd still get garrison troops, but not the same level of offensive punch from them. You could even make them upgradable to infantry, but at a very high cost.

 

[vlad1917_a]

Concerning mobilization: I don´t use it because of the reason I can´t build everything in the current scenario.
Concerning drafting: Drafting is very good to get some good garrison troops very fast. I would have a garrison problem if drafting is not allowed. Another option would be a building producing German security divisions every turn in each city but I think that would unbalance the game much more. So IMO drafting should stay in each of the powers.

Adler

I do not use garnisons at all. Just border lines but SD are not useful here. But I use draft to attack. I think half attacks of first 20 turns made by draft and Germans are very successful there with their air support.
I see if u upgrade unit the old unit run out of production

 

[Cowabunga]

Version 1.5 German

Finishing up the SU, I came roaring down the Kamchatka Penisula with a very strong force of 4 SS 1943 Panzer, 4 SS 1944 Panzer, 2 Panther. We succeeded in storming the last remaining Soviet City - Kamchatsk or something like that. After investing the city with most of my force, it was the AI's turn.

Along came an American DDF and attempted a landing with one Marine unit. A Panzer 44 made short work of him.

The whole incident reminded me of the old US Army joke about the Marines.

To be a Marine, there are two requirements:

You must be big, and you must be dumb.

However, if you are really, really dumb, we'll make the part about being big, optional.

Very respectfully,

Cowabunga

 

[vlad1917_a]

Sasebo,

1)

I think you are wrong in saying that I advocate wholesale changes.

2)
You are, however, correct that my comments are focused on the major powers. And yes, playing Italy, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands or China at SID level is very probably a non starter. France - perhaps. And to be honest, the prospect of playing those countries does not really motivate me.

3)
My main interest is that if I am playing Britain, I want the German AI to be a very challenging oponent. If I am playing Germany I want Britain, USSR and the US to be powerful and effective AI opponents. I therefore believe the scenrio parameters should give the AI's all they need to run those countries in the best way possible given the limitations of the game engine.

While playing some of the lesser powers may be interesting and a challenge, I just think the main focus of the scenario should be an exciting and challenging game between the major powers.


4) But that is just my opinion. Others have far more experience in designing scenarios and developing this scenario than I do. Heck, I have never designed any scenario, so I probably I have no idea what I'm talking about. Please take my comments as observations from a newbie player and put them in that context.

5)
Whatever, it is absolutley not my intent to propose lots of wholsale changes to an already outstanding scenario. And my apologies if I am causing confusion or heartburn.

Grizx

1) You can change or u can branch. Why remove old good one? Why do not to build new one? Keep old create new.

2) Playing minor powers right now is not interesting but makable. because the carrent scenario research gives u only historic units. Well what units u get if Britain falls and France survive? Or China witholds Japan. Do they really will have only old tanks dated back to 1917? Or Finn concuer Moscow with the words "We are bring democracy"...

4) Me too but I can see changes.

5) No need.

3)
Why it hard to play SID in regular game and easy here? Because of research. It is hard to keep up with AI on research in regular game so u always last. Here you either spy or just use whatever u have form the begining.

The best approach to give AI advantage is to make research different for each player. AI have internal bonuses on research while player does not.


Here is other simple thing. You not only want to play with Major powers. You want to have different game story on it and different plans. It is very hard to make. The great example is three kingdoms by Sarevok. 3 Players each unique. So far I have noticed only 2.5 game's stories in that scenario. Guess.
The correct Answer is 1 (Germany, Japan, Britain, USA) the 2 is France and the 0.5 is (Itally and Russia those have Handycap but then exactly the same as 1 ones)

The research tree I propose give different play scenario for different civs.

But well I probably will play Italians and then I am done.

 

[vlad1917_a]

Concerning mobilization: I don´t use it because of the reason I can´t build everything in the current scenario.
Adler

You can build everything except hydro plants. These you can build during short period of peace. It why I ask about reconsidering what you can build during mobilization.