WW2-Global

[Equuleus]

I edited my e mail out.

 

[Baldurslayer]

It said nothing patched.
And someone said something like you need a no cd version.
I am confused. Can someone help me,I dont know how to make the patch work.
I have C3C 1.22 and I need a cd to play.

There is an edit button

I haven't used this patch so far but it seems you need a no cd-patch/crack and use the new no-raze-patch on the modified (non-cd) c3c executable. All the relevant links are in the thread Rocoteh pointed you towards. Other than that I can not help you with.

Will you add Yugoslavia,Greece,and Denmark-Norway to the allies?
I think this will greatly help the German AI.

Now imagine the Soviets declare war on the Allies early on, a red army invasion into Denmark-Norway and Yugoslavia ... triggering an early Axis-Soviet war due to trespassing Soviet units trying to get to Greece or Yugoslavia aned especially Norway via axis territory.
I see more of a benefit for the Italian AI since it might expand its territory towards Yugoslavia right from the start.


On the hole it just feels odd with these minor countries being part of the western Allies, just like the Swiss joining the war ...

All the best

 

[Rocoteh]

"Winton, in Outback Queensland, is not a transport nexus, nor has any great unit production capabilities. It has a population barely more than 1500 in this era, let alone WW2. If a settlement in this area is required, Mount Isa would be more appropriate.

Cooktown, whilst an important base for Allied troops in Northern Queensland, is small, and perhaps Cairns (which served a similar role in a similar location for the purposes of our map) could substitute for it; this is a real toss up between them."
Simon Darkshade

I have stated this before, and I state it again:

Some of the cities placed in WW2-Global have been placed to
get correct borders and to avoid "holes" in the map.

Given I could have set borders where I wanted (without regard
to cities and culture points) and if I could have placed 1 000 cities
instead of 512 there had been other solutions in many cases!


Rocoteh

 

[Gattamelata]

The issue is how to prod the AI into a situation where they do not blow everything they have at the first moment, allowing a freeing up of naval assets.

I'd be delighted if such a solution could be found. Unfortunately, no game of Civ3 that I've played since it came out has ever demonstrated to me that the AI treats its navy, nor its capital ships in particular, as anything but disposable units to be employed immediately in pursuit of whatever military action has current priority. Have you seen the AI be more conservative with its fleets? If so, maybe the circumstances can be isolated and potentially reproduced. If we could reliably reproduce such a thing, then I think it would be of considerable benefit to the scenario builders.

What I do not see at this time is how the 3 civilisations slow the Soviet offensive, save in encouraging the Red Army to take out all of its foes and thus splitting its axis of advance.
It would be interesting for Ploesti to play a role.

I'm playing as the Soviets right now, and just simulated Operation Barbarossa. Here's what I've found:

The discrete civs slowed me down considerably, and magnified the effect of Germany's resistance, seemingly in two ways:

1) Germany's eastern front is considerably smaller, so they focus their military on a smaller area. This is no small benefit, especially for the AI, which doesn't have the same capacity as a player to build strategic rail networks.

2) The defense that these civs put up, even against a much more powerful military, is surprisingly effective, much more effective than I've seen when those cities were held by Germany. It seems to be due to unit concentration: all the units produced and autoproduced in those cities stay in those cities to defend them, rather than being spread across the entirety of German-held Europe. I did, however, wait until week 21 of 1941 to engage the Axis, so this defensive benefit may be much less effective earlier in the scenario. In my game I am actually making more rapid progress by driving at Konigsberg and Bremen (two German cities with Fortresses) than by driving north and west from Istanbul.


Your point that an early Soviet advance could be held off by placement of Fortresses is of course valid. But it may make cities "hard" that weren't historically. If Rocoteh's intent is to slow down the Soviets without hardening the minor Axis cities, then it has worked for this Soviet player. I can't say whether it helps for the Soviet AI.

 

[Robert01]

Had computer problems long story short I had to reinstall my OS.
I did start a play test as Finland with the aggression up 2 levels for Germany and Japan.I only got a few turns done before my HD went out so here is what happened.
Week 36 1939
I made a trade deal with the Soviet Union furs for oil,Iron,and rubber.
I made trade deal with Germany furs for Aluminum,Coal,and wines.
After I end my turn the Germans take Danzig.

Week 40 1939
The Germans took Amsterdam & Rotterdam.
Warsaw had a population of 1.

Week 41 1939.
Germans took Warsaw

 

[Robert01]

The files badkharma sent me are on another HD.

I need 10 more units for my patch.
Pz2 M2A2 Hart GArtB USart Navada U boat typ XXI 203mm M-3A1Stuart [Mobile Artillery PRTO_Mech_Infantry is the vanilla
MECH INF used for Mobile Artillery?]
And the .PCX files.

P.S.
There are a few units I have but dont look that good.

1.Me-109[I have the one in Barbarossa It kind of looks weird if there is a better 1 in this scenario please send.]
2.Pz4H[I have the one in Barbarossa It kind of looks weird if there is a better 1 in this scenario please send.]
3.YAK3&Yak9[I have the ones in Barbarossa they look kind of weird if there are better units in this scenario please send.]
4.Mobile Rockets PRTO_Radar_Artillery[I have the Katusya if there is a different 1 other than Katusya in this scenario please send.]
5.Bismark& Yamato[I have an old units from 2002 if there are newer versions please send]

Please post the files to mooload.
http://www.mooload.com/new/

 

[Equuleus]

OK I have what I need to make the no raze patch work.
Next time I do a play test I think I will do it with the no raze patch.

P.S.
When I do my play test it will be as the USA with Yugoslavia,Greece,and Norway-Denmark as part of the allies.

Can you rename Radom Krakow?

 

[The Dragonlord]

Roceteh

In my games the US AI does carrier raids but also usually captures Kwajalein. Also,they usually recapture Port Moresby after Japan has captured it. After I gave Truk a VP in my last game the US captured it too.

In my last game I saw AI workers from several countries planting forests on grassland instead of building roads or mines. Do you know what can be causing that & is there a way to prevent it?

Some observations on the draft & gov'ts. All those size 1 cities I don't believe are caused by the draft but by forced labor because unless I am mistaken a city has to be greater than size 6 to draft. I have noticed that with no draft if Germany or Japan is attacked by a Russia that has been at peace for a while stockpiling units their cities fall like a house of cards because they don't have enough units & can't quickly get more. This is especially true with paid labor as they never have enough money to buy many units all at once.

Another thing I have noticed is that with paid labor the AI uses its money to buy units while putting research very low thus delaying when new techs are finished & the new better units appear. If drafting is not the problem causing small cities maybe forced labor w/1 draft for the axis & Russia might work better for them. The allies are usually not in such dire need for immediate units so paid labor still works for them & they might research faster.

Hope this is helpful

The Dragonlord

 

[Rocoteh]

OK I have what I need to make the no raze patch work.
Next time I do a play test I think I will do it with the no raze patch.

P.S.
When I do my play test it will be as the USA with Yugoslavia,Greece,and Norway-Denmark as part of the allies.

Can you rename Radom Krakow?

I will consider it.


Rocoteh

 

[Equuleus]

I think the following worker options should be cut.
1.Railroads
2.Plant forest
3.Clear forest
4.Clear jungle

 

[Rocoteh]

I think the following worker options should be cut.
1.Railroads
2.Plant forest
3.Clear forest
4.Clear jungle

Equuleus,

1&2 have already been implemented in version 2.5.

I will consider 3&4.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

The Dragonlord,

Thank you for your comments.

"In my games the US AI does carrier raids but also usually captures Kwajalein. Also,they usually recapture Port Moresby after Japan has captured it."
The Dragonlord

That is positive.

"In my last game I saw AI workers from several countries planting forests on grassland instead of building roads or mines. Do you know what can be causing that & is there a way to prevent it?"
The Dragonlord

Yes it will no longer be possible to plant forests in version 2.5.

"Some observations on the draft & gov'ts. All those size 1 cities I don't believe are caused by the draft but by forced labor because unless I am mistaken a city has to be greater than size 6 to draft. I have noticed that with no draft if Germany or Japan is attacked by a Russia that has been at peace for a while stockpiling units their cities fall like a house of cards because they don't have enough units & can't quickly get more. This is especially true with paid labor as they never have enough money to buy many units all at once"
The Dragonlord

Forced labor was removed in version 2.4.

The problem with draft is that human players will benefit to much
from it compared to AI.

"Another thing I have noticed is that with paid labor the AI uses its money to buy units while putting research very low thus delaying when new techs are finished & the new better units appear. If drafting is not the problem causing small cities maybe forced labor w/1 draft for the axis & Russia might work better for them. The allies are usually not in such dire need for immediate units so paid labor still works for them & they might research faster."
The Dragonlord

What you describe here is no doubt a problem.
However if I reintroduce draft in the scenario human players can
once again play at high risk against AI and then rely on draft should
things go wrong.

A constant critique versus earlier versions of the scenario have
been that it was to easy to win.
Now its much harder and I want it to stay that way.

Rocoteh

 

[Equuleus]

Dear Rocoteh.
Can you make a list of changes to be made to 2.5 and possible changes.


P.S. To all people following this scenario.
What do other players think about my idea to have Yugoslavia,Greece,and Norway Denmark as part of the allies.
I think this will greatly help the German AI and stop the allies from attacking these countries.[I know the UK had plans to invade Norway.]

 

[Baldurslayer]

P.S. To all people following this scenario.
What do other players think about my idea to have Yugoslavia,Greece,and Norway Denmark as part of the allies.
I think this will greatly help the German AI and stop the allies from attacking these countries.[I know the UK had plans to invade Norway.]

As I stated earlier Denmark/Norway will probably cause more problems than it will solve (might trigger early Soviet war on Axis and weaken Finland by a long war against their Western neighbour)
Scapa Flow and the Norwegian coastal cities might also make it harder for the Kriegsmarine/U-boats to reach the Atlantic in one piece.

You can make a case with Greece and Yugoslavia yet I'd be interested how Hungry, Bulgaria and Rumania will do in this situation.

All the best

Edit:
With Greece on the Allied side Turkey should favour fascist governments and dislike the Greeks ... oh I meant the Allies. WW1 all over again

 

[Equuleus]

In the interest of historical accuracy.

In 1939 Switzerland had 90 BF 109s.
In 1939 Yugoslavia had 73 BF 109s.
I think these nations should get BF 109 squadrons in the interest of historical accuracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109#Combat_service_with_Switzerland

Maybe Norway Denmark is not a good idea but I will have to play test it first.
But for sure Yugoslavia and Greece.

 

[Rocoteh]

Dear Rocoteh.
Can you make a list of changes to be made to 2.5 and possible changes.

Equuleus,

I will make a list when more changes have been implemented.

The release of version 2.5 is still far away.

Rocoteh

 

[Simon Darkshade]

"Winton, in Outback Queensland, is not a transport nexus, nor has any great unit production capabilities. It has a population barely more than 1500 in this era, let alone WW2. If a settlement in this area is required, Mount Isa would be more appropriate.

Cooktown, whilst an important base for Allied troops in Northern Queensland, is small, and perhaps Cairns (which served a similar role in a similar location for the purposes of our map) could substitute for it; this is a real toss up between them."
Simon Darkshade

I have stated this before, and I state it again:

Some of the cities placed in WW2-Global have been placed to
get correct borders and to avoid "holes" in the map.

Given I could have set borders where I wanted (without regard
to cities and culture points) and if I could have placed 1 000 cities
instead of 512 there had been other solutions in many cases!


Rocoteh

In both situations, it was not a critique of cities being placed there, but rather which cities were chosen or effectively towns. I acknowledge the situation, yet these particular examples aren't particularly ones which would violate said principle. Indeed, it could even be a matter of rebadging the cities under appropriate names.

In the case of North Africa, the inland borders are nebulous enough; perhaps outposts could do part of the job. Just as in many desolate zones, and particularly on the Dark Continent, a border is little more than a line on the map. Roads are far more important to African offensives using the Civ3 engine, given that the terrain can be very rugged and not particularly hospitable to the progress of modern forces.

In the circumstance of Northern Canada, the borders are once again not of the utmost strategic import.

Essentially though, I did not approach this facet of the issue from merely wanting to quibble about the naming of cities (which is a very minor factor), but rather to seek some sort of developmental balance, where the industrial heartlands and key production zones of equipment fall on a roughly realistic basis. As such, one set out to muse on cities in order to create a hedge without thought to the issues of borders; this hedge was motivated by holes of a different type within Britain. If holes on the map are a bigger worry, then such is life.

If there is interest in making the scenario more difficult from the perspective of a German player, a further British city in position to interdict their progress through air, influence, production and sea basing is a suggestion though, all terseness aside.

If that is not workable, then so be it. I'm not sure if the 512 city limit has been even reached, so it may be much ado about nothing. It is not something that the British Empire player needs for victory; it can complicate the German position as a human player. It all comes out of the issue that is discussed in the following first point of this exchange with Gattamelata; taken out of that context, it does lose its purpose.

Gattamelata:

1.) It is a constant feature of the SP game; I have seen some occasions in AoI where there was some restriction of use, but nothing to indicate a pattern. Differing naval terrain types have also influenced what has been employed at times...

Perhaps badge KM capital ships and cruisers as sinking in certain terrain, necessitating that they seize access to Norway before being able to deploy, so that they need to creep through the coastal waters slowly before being able to burst out into the Atlantic at least in a more northerly clime.

Additionally, give U-Boats the ability to move quickly through the North Sea terrain, allowing them to get to their hunting grounds. Obviously later, with Norway and France (possibly with coastal autoproducers and sub bases buildable there), the strategic calculus changes. At that time, it is no longer a case of being easy for a human Allied player. He will have to use his noggin.

Perhaps that can allow some form of simulation, but some rough house rules and wonders autoproducing capital ships at an appropriate rate would also create a note of uncertainty for a human Allied player.

Given initial numbers for the RN, they can be forced to use the Rs for convoy escort by slightly bumping U Boat numbers and capabilities, deploy the QEs to the Med to cover the RM, keep the battlecruisers and most modern battleships with Home Fleet; needing to send an urgent early Force Z to the Far East could also be prompted with placing some IJN cruisers and light carriers a bit further south of the Home Islands, as well as prompting an early invasion of Indochina.

Having fiddled with the situation, the RM if given Littorios will sortie them, but then retire to port. This is encouraging, and the best that can be hoped for in the confines of the Med. They will come out to fight the MN, which does lower their strength through combat losses and attrition, but don't all go galloping for Alexandria or the Rock without bait. Deploying the MN in Marseille rather than off it did also slightly improve matters.

In the end, short of MP, a human player is not going to get an optimum contest in war at sea, but playing around with terrain, unit properties, speeds, steady autoproduction (or use of immobile units to represent hulls prior to their launch) and modest house rules do have the potential to improve the situation somewhat.

2.) With time, their positions would certainly improve. It seems that the axis of Soviet advance is split as I thought it may be, and if this does impact upon how a human player would advance, then that is something.

Fortresses will harden cities, but this is not necessarily ahistorical. The siege of Budapest was some of the hardest fighting of the war; Romania switched prior to full invasion; and Bulgaria capitulated after token resistance.
As such, preplacing some means of defence in Hungary may be a thought.
The switching of the other two cannot be simulated, so they can stay without fortresses.

I am warming to the notion upon reflection. If it can force a human USSR player to consider a changed strategy, then all well and good. If it can raise the level of competence of the AI to somewhere around that mercurial mistake maker in the Wolfschanze, then all well and good (that statement says a lot about both parties)

However, the whole business of pushing towards Bremen in 1941 is a sad part of the business, if only in terms of early Soviet entry and smashing of the Jerries. Maybe even a Soviet human biq, along with an Allied human one and a Japanese one, as well as the current model for German development could serve those purposes; that would take a lot of work though, and it is best to refine what is for the moment, and consider those potentials for the future.

Equuleus - As the man himself points out, it creates the potential for some very troublesome events. Others could be a Yugoslav invasion of Northern Italy in conjunction with a full court press by the French, leading to the apple cart being truly upset.

Yugoslavia and Greece can probably stay as they are.

A case can be made for Norway and Denmark, particularly if some German forces could be preplaced, or poised to invade. As I mentioned earlier, Norway can be very useful strategically with matters as they are, and even more so if some tweaks could be worked.

Denmark can serve as a simple speed hump, but there needs to be a pause before an invasion of Norway - perhaps enticing victory positions and no transports buildable at the beginning (this would stop the Germans from any early attempts at Sea Lion before they have finished off the mainland and consolidated their forces.

One or more of the Northern German cities can have its wonder produce a transport every x turns, with the first one popping out in April/May 1940; or the matter could be simulated with technology coming in at a certain point.

However, a lot of those possibilities rest on assumptions. A human player of Germany could follow those set of circumstances well enough; the AI is a different matter. The issue would require playtesting, and a reasonable amount of tinkering. In the end, it is similar to the issue of Finland - it may not be a 100% accurate rendering of history, but in the words of Mercutio, " 'tis enough, 'tis enough!"


Thought: Minefields off the North Sea coast of Britain to represent the essential difficulty, indeed impossibility, of staging an amphibious invasion in that area. If the Jerries wish to land, they need to seize the Low Countries and France and come through the Channel.

 

[Baldurslayer]

In the interest of historical accuracy.

In 1939 Switzerland had 90 BF 109s.
In 1939 Yugoslavia had 73 BF 109s.
I think these nations should get BF 109 squadrons in the interest of historical accuracy.

Maybe Norway Denmark is not a good idea but I will have to play test it first.
But for sure Yugoslavia and Greece.

You raise a valid point, to what degree should foreign equipment be simulated? Yes, the 109 was used by Switzerland and Yugoslavia but also by Finland, Romania, Spain etc. should these air forces also have them perhaps at the start but unable to build then since they got them from Germany?
The same ist true for ground units, France can produce Sherman tanks rather late in the scenario (if I recall that correctly) German allies used the Stug III, Me 210, Pz IIIs and IVs etc.

Personally I see this foreign equipment as rather flavour units. As a "Swiss player" I'd take great pride in the one 109 unit I have.

All the best

 

[Equuleus]

They had 90.
It would be 2 BF 109s.

I think having them at the start only is best.

On the French maybe we need "what if" advanced French units.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

As I stated earlier Denmark/Norway will probably cause more problems than it will solve (might trigger early Soviet war on Axis and weaken Finland by a long war against their Western neighbour)
Scapa Flow and the Norwegian coastal cities might also make it harder for the Kriegsmarine/U-boats to reach the Atlantic in one piece.

You can make a case with Greece and Yugoslavia yet I'd be interested how Hungry, Bulgaria and Rumania will do in this situation.

All the best

Edit:
With Greece on the Allied side Turkey should favour fascist governments and dislike the Greeks ... oh I meant the Allies. WW1 all over again

I certainly concur that the gauntlet would be tightened. It is ironic that I postulated effectively similar circumstances at the southern end of the European theatre, when much the same could be said of the north.

Circumstances that could ameliorate this: reduce the numbers of destroyers with Home Fleet's heavy units at Scapa* ; reduce Norwegian DD capabilities; up the U-Boat movement rate;.

Anything on the surface coming upon the gauntlet would and should have difficulty surviving; it is for this reason I contemplate the requirement of capital ship deployment of Norwegian fjords, as expanded upon in one's previous post.

It should probably be discouraged for a human British Empire player to spread their destroyers out in a cordon across the North Sea, given the unrealistic nature of such circumstances. It almost makes a destroyer reduction worthy of consideration, but not quite.

The issue of triggering war is a concerning one that in turn raises the spectre of Finland, and what to do with it in such a situation. Impassable mountains, combined with immobile Swedish defence units? This is ahistorical, given the Allied plans to reinforce Finland through Norway and Sweden during the Winter War, but is the best in this hypothetical.

As said, it creates a lot of issues.

Yugoslavia could create problems with Italy. Greece could attack Bulgaria and Albania, but would not really turn the tide with any bizarre situations to my guesstimation.

The prospect of Turkey going Axis is an interesting one! It would not be ideal for a game with a German human player if there was a possibility of deploying over the straits through Turkey to the Middle East and trapping 8th Army in a pincer. It would make matters interesting for a British human player, given a necessity to defend the Mid East on multiple fronts - it would be a matter of utmost importance to ship those Indian and Anzac divisions to Suez as quickly as they could get there.

* = For example, RN Home Fleet deployments in late September 1940

10DD Dover and Portsmouth
1 CL, 3 DD Sherness
3 CL, 7 DD Humber
9 DD Harwich
1 CL, 2 DD Tyne
2 CL Rosyth
5 BB, 3 CA, 9 DD Scapa Flow

More deployed on convoy duty.

The RN could be spread out more at the beginning - ships from Home Fleet detached to their various stations. This is mirrored partly with the Arethusa class in Canada and the Leanders off Sydney. The current starting deployments are reasonably accurate, but if Norway was an issue and an allied member, then slight tweaks may be in order.