wotan321 said:
I'm there with you. I was overly snarky, maybe it was the coffee...maybe I was just rude. I commented because I do want to see a good Civ4 WW2 Europe scenario. I applaude accuracy in these scenarios, but I'm more interested in options such as promotions and technologies, so the scenario becomes more open to "what if" instead of simply replaying WW2 exactly as it happened. I'm much more interested in events and choices than I am about the gun sizes of various armored units.
Again I point back to the amazing Storm Over Europe scenario for Civ3. Unbelievable detail, every unit represented, and unplayable because of its size. So I don't want to see a WW2 scenario get bogged down in arguements over which unit should have more of this or that. One thing I liked about the Small, Fast and Beautiful WW2 scenario was the relative simplicity. That would be even more useful here, since promotions allow you to customize units more than you could in Civ3.
I don't know wotan321. At this point anyway, it's pretty simple when the Germans don't even have fighters and can't build them to boot. Must just be an oversight. I also recall the Germans commenced Operation Barbarossa with 180 divisions. Naturally the author isn't attempting this, and naturally each unit isn't supposed to represent a division, to say nothing of this being six months before the USSR was invaded. We need not get super accuracy and the author can do as he pleases, but we suggest in case he really is interested in makng it a bit more realistic. I'm not entirely sure my earlier take was completely accurate, nonetheless, if Germany has nothing like the sort of force you would envision for the time (or anybody else for that matter) which cannot be made up to par with the 6/22/41 Germans, because you don't have any oil, and then the USSR is attacking with very strong force to boot, that's quite a far leap from WWII. In fact it's much closer to 1/45 than 1/41.
Yeah, I know people start getting demanding a lot of times when people start making scenarios, but whether there's misunderstandings of whether the people are demanding, or suggesting, the simple fact of the matter is that it's just as stupid to pretend that there's nothing wrong with it although from some nation's perpectives it could be still enjoyable. Enjoyable in a fantasy way only though (such as WWII in 1/41 with Germany having NO oil and no fighters). A WWII where Germany can't even hold it's borders when it's at the height of it's power is quite a fundamental oversight. I suppose, in my case, I could go in and alter the forces a bit and add oil to Germany, but it does make me wonder just how massive that gets once you begin. I've only seen Germany for pete's sake. What if the other nations are much the same way? This way if everybody is playing random nations they can report the 'fundamental' flaws and it can be corrected with the most ease. It's not greatly historic, but at the same time it's not WWII with a nation being very inaccurately represented.
And one last thing, though we properly fear, that an engine like this cannot handle both historic accuracy and the common feel to CIV4, we in essence are the testors. Without giving the author feedback many of the scenarios are what they are claimed to be by virtue of using very spacious imagination indeed. As you said, you've seen better. Now, I can't recall if I played that CIV3 one you mentioned, but there was some problem with it for me, so I stopped playing it. I can't recall if it was lack of historic accuracy or lack of the ability to have it function like CIV3 does that drove me away (some scenarios drove me away either by their not loading properly or by the map being excessively busy). I personally think that with a CIV game, despite a scenario taking on something of the historic hue, that it's a bit ridiculous that people would bother to create units complete with proper divisional names. The reason I think that is because it's not anymore historic by it's use. I know that sounds strange to hear, but the fact of the matter is that divisions don't discentigrate as so many of our units do and none of the CIV games are adept at having somebody create every single division, or brigade, or any military unit, as they were in life, and then still have a CIV game out of it. CIV would work against such a desire, whereas such a desire for the precise amount of units would take away from CIV. That's why I like generic units, and frankly I don't much care for historic timelines either in the case of programmed events. I tend to care more if the game starts off with it's units with their relative power being accurate. The rest is pretty much fantasy and the CIV engine. But, as you can see, that's my problem with this game as it stands, as germany has a great weakness (and other nations may too). If there's any nations you cannot afford to get wrong (at the start only, as the CIV engine can change things drastically based on decisons ingame) in 1/41 it's Germany, the USSR, and Great Britain. The USA was so weak in 1/41 that getting them nothing more than a token force starting off, wouldn't be too inaccurate. We're just talking 'fundamental' things here, no great accuracy. You can't have fundamental flaws in a historic scenario, at least not at that start, and still call that even slightly historic. You might as well just start them all off even with one city if you have something as fundamentally flawed as the aggressor relugated to being a cowering wimp.
I'm sure if the author wants to make this more historic, he will gladly spot these flaws I mentioned, most notably the lack of fighters and the inability to build anything worthwhile (no oil), and correct them. That would make it at least taste a bit like WWII. If not, the game may be just as fun, just not very WWIIish. Unfortunately for me, I didn't load the game becaue I expected something more resembling a random setup than WWII. There's games you load ofr randomness, there's games you load for some flavor of history. It would be just as disappointing for the random game desire to see you've loaded the revolutionary war by mistake. Thanks.
.
