02-03-2004 21:39									#31
	Tired of ads?

Congratulations on another very interesting, well-designed scenario.

Germany (Deity) is doing just fine, churning out 2 tech advances per turn. Once it gets Panzergrenadiers in April '37, everybody better watch out!

You may want to change the Pz VI Panther to Pz V Panther to match the icon.

Last edited by AGRICOLA on 02-03-2004 at 21:58

	03-03-2004 06:49									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

On the topic of the too-fast tech progress, it seems that I may have forgotten to adjust the tech paradigm down from the accelerated levels I used during my last minute testing. When I was fiddling around with the scenario last night, the British were developing two techs per turn!

quote: Originally posted by AGRICOLA You may want to change the Pz VI Panther to Pz V Panther to match the icon.

I thought that the Tiger was the Pz V. Didn't it appear before the Panther?

quote: Originally posted by Boco Psst! Just about any American outside of New Jersey will give less than a less than glowing appraisal of NJ and its denizens. However, they're all wrong, we're a polite, quiet, generous bunch.

I've caught a train through New Jersey: all I remember is swamps, industrial wasteland and sprawling suburbia The suburbia looked rather pleasant, ableit in a cold way (it was late December).

...Not that I can really criticise where anybody else lives: most Australians think that Canberra is one of the most boring places in the world, and resent us for taxing and governing them. The ungrateful fools

	03-03-2004 07:41									#33
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I think you have the Pzkw V (Panther) and VI (Tiger) bass ackwards.

If no one else volunteers before then, I'll proof your text files on Sunday. There are a few minor errors. I promise I won't Americanize it.

As you can imagine, you see the finest real estate from trains and superhighways.

	03-03-2004 09:29									#34
	Full PM-box? Change here!

@Case

Your comments seem to explain why at the start Germany needs only ~360 flasks for a tech advance. The results have been puzzling me a bit because freights are generating flasks at a very high rate compared to what is needed for tech advances while the $$ returns have been quite a bit lower than I would have expected, considering the commodity, the number of trade arrows in the home city, the probable number in the destination city and the route taken by freights. Compared to Raging Dragon, I'm getting chickenfeed $$.

What should the tech paradigm be set to? I wouldn't mind re-setting it even if it means backtracking a few turns. Does it have any effect on the low $$ returns?

Howcum Panzergrenadiers and Freights show 4 movement in the units window but seem to be able to move only 12 squares along roads when a 1 Mv unit can move 4? It's seriously cramping my style.

	03-03-2004 10:05									#35
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Both PzG and Freights have mf=3 in Rules.txt. Road bonus=4. That's consistent with the mf you see.

quote: Howcum Panzergrenadiers and Freights show 4 movement in the units window

Pedia or Defense Advisor?

	03-03-2004 11:09									#36
	Increase Your PM Length

@Boco

Military Units window in Pedia.

	03-03-2004 11:12									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by AGRICOLA Military Units window in Pedia.

I figured as much. Defence Advisor displays raw MF values. The Pedia, on the other hand, uses this formula:

Road Multiplier/3 x MF

Therefore, when the Road Multiplier is 4 and the MF is 1, the Pedia displays 1 (1.33 rounded down). When the MF is 3, the Pedia displays 4.

	03-03-2004 12:01									#38
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Thanks for clearing up source of discrepancy.

	03-03-2004 14:42									#39
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Boco I think you have the Pzkw V (Panther) and VI (Tiger) bass ackwards.

Um, yeah it sure looks like it. As I have an adversion to Nazi army weaponry, I'm a bit hazy on that kind of thing.

quote: If no one else volunteers before then, I'll proof your text files on Sunday. There are a few minor errors. I promise I won't Americanize it.

Wow thanks!

I'm sure that you won't Americanise it

quote: As you can imagine, you see the finest real estate from trains and superhighways.

Good point

quote: Originally posted by AGRICOLA Your comments seem to explain why at the start Germany needs only ~360 flasks for a tech advance. The results have been puzzling me a bit because freights are generating flasks at a very high rate compared to what is needed for tech advances while the $$ returns have been quite a bit lower than I would have expected, considering the commodity, the number of trade arrows in the home city, the probable number in the destination city and the route taken by freights. Compared to Raging Dragon, I'm getting chickenfeed $$.

Yeah, that's the long and short of it I suspect.

The main reasons the trade cash returns are low is that there are no RRs and the trade unit is a caravan and not a freight. As the 1930s and 1940s were a time of protectionism and autarky the low cash returns don't bother me.

quote: What should the tech paradigm be set to?

From memory, it's currently at techs cost 6/10 of their default cost when they should cost 8/10. All the main civs should develop a tech every two or three turns. As the tech tree is pretty long and unit production costs are relatively high this rate isn't quite as useful as it looks.

Catfish, thanks for sorting that out - I'll add it to the readme. To be honest, as I always used the rules file and not the civlopedia to check that stuff I hadn't even noticed the problem

	03-03-2004 17:51									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Civilopedia mf's are a mess for EA, too. I missed the reason why as well. Think I'll go back and edit the label something like "Check mf via [F2]".

	03-03-2004 20:25									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

@Case
Thanks. Resetting tech paradigm to 8/10 and starting afresh.

Just finished web search for Genevre. Didn't get any useful hits. Changing the spelling to Genève brought up much interesting interesting information about an old Swiss city.

	03-03-2004 21:53									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Tried 8/10 for tech paradigm. Germany can still get 2 advances per turn. As the tech rate is crucial for the scenario and its lengthy tech tree, it might be best if you did a quick fixup and re-released the scenario. Otherwise any feedback on difficulty and playability will be severely flawed.

At the same time you might want to look at the lack of realism introduced by Labor Camps and their risk of nuclear meltdown in a 1936-1949 scenario. I had Munich blow up on the second turn before I could sell the rest of the damned things. As far as I know there was nothing nuclear that could have melted down in any German city, or anywhere else in the world, in October, 1936.

Similarly, I don't think that having pollution and global warming turned on is in keeping with the time period, unless the pollution is due to A-bombs. Even if A-bombs are used, significant global warming would not occur within the time frame of the scenario. IMO it should be turned off.

Last edited by AGRICOLA on 03-03-2004 at 22:48

	04-03-2004 12:29									#43
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by AGRICOLA Tried 8/10 for tech paradigm. Germany can still get 2 advances per turn.

That's fine. Are the other civs also producing techs at this rate?

quote: As the tech rate is crucial for the scenario and its lengthy tech tree, it might be best if you did a quick fixup and re-released the scenario. Otherwise any feedback on difficulty and playability will be severely flawed.

Yeah/ However, I was putting that off until I got a few more comments though - in my experiance while everybody who originally downloads the inital scenari downloads the first update/upgrade, the second update/upgrade is a whole lot less popular.

And then when I tried to load civ last night to impliment the excelent sugestions which have so far been contributed, FW wouldn't work! (see: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...threadid=109936)

quote: At the same time you might want to look at the lack of realism introduced by Labor Camps and their risk of nuclear meltdown in a 1936-1949 scenario. I had Munich blow up on the second turn before I could sell the rest of the damned things. As far as I know there was nothing nuclear that could have melted down in any German city, or anywhere else in the world, in October, 1936.

I've never actually had this happen to me - did you reduce the luxury rate? I want the Nazis and Soviets to have to keep their luxury rates high - historically these regimes only stayed in power at the cost of crippling their nation through bribes and inanely high levels of repression.

quote: Similarly, I don't think that having pollution and global warming turned on is in keeping with the time period, unless the pollution is due to A-bombs.

The 1930s and 40s were one of the great eras of industrial pollution, and I want to include this. It was during this time frame that many European Industrial cities became unlivable (hence the rush to the suburbs after 1945) and the Soviets began systematically poisoning their nation.

During the war the weak environmental safeguards were reduced further/totally ignored and this had a very real human and economic cost - for instance, my Grandfather died of asbestos related cancer ten years ago because the Australian shipyards relaxed their safety and environmental standards during the war.

	04-03-2004 15:31									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Case I want the Nazis and Soviets to have to keep their luxury rates high - historically these regimes only stayed in power at the cost of crippling their nation through bribes and inanely high levels of repression. The 1930s and 40s were one of the great eras of industrial pollution, and I want to include this. It was during this time frame that many European Industrial cities became unlivable (hence the rush to the suburbs after 1945) and the Soviets began systematically poisoning their nation.

About pollution, Thoddy used what IMHO is a very interesting concept: pollution as demonstrations and trade-unions protest and strikes.

	04-03-2004 18:23									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Case quote: Originally posted by AGRICOLA Tried 8/10 for tech paradigm. Germany can still get 2 advances per turn. That's fine. Are the other civs also producing techs at this rate?

I did a fast forward through the 4 month period from June to September 1937. In this interval Britain, France, Italy and the Soviet Union each produced 3 tech advances, a considerably higher rate than the one you mentioned in an earlier post. Germany's 2 techs per turn are the result of both trade and research.

quote: I've never actually had this happen to me - did you reduce the luxury rate? I want the Nazis and Soviets to have to keep their luxury rates high - historically these regimes only stayed in power at the cost of crippling their nation through bribes and inanely high levels of repression.

I did not reduce the luxury rate but I may have been sloppy and allowed Munich to slide into disorder.

I apologize if I wasn't clear on this point but the only thing I do not think appropriate is the nuclear reference in the description of Labor Camps. There were no nuclear facilities at the time of the scenario. Changing the description to something like "Unpaid workers from Labor Camps increase industrial production by 50%. There is a risk that they may riot and destroy the camp." would make more sense to me. The mushroom cloud doesn't look all that different from the smoke of a torched camp.

quote: quote: Similarly, I don't think that having pollution and global warming turned on is in keeping with the time period, unless the pollution is due to A-bombs. The 1930s and 40s were one of the great eras of industrial pollution, and I want to include this. It was during this time frame that many European Industrial cities became unlivable (hence the rush to the suburbs after 1945) and the Soviets began systematically poisoning their nation.

I appreciate your point on pollution, it makes sense. Is there a way to have pollution without global warming or a way to ensure that any actual warming takes place after the end of the scenario?

	07-03-2004 11:28									#46
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Now that FW is back in action, I'm working on the upgrade. If you've got any more sugestions for improvements, I'd love to read them.

	21-03-2004 05:52									#47
	Suffering from ads?

quote: moving 6 invasion divisions across the channel to Europe on D-Day took the best part of year's worth of British and American naval construction, and Opertion Sea Lion would have required something like half of Germany's entire fleet of barges and merchant ships (including those captured in 1940).

This sounds good. A&A shouldn't follow history, but is the historical path of invasions possible?

	21-03-2004 08:22									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Germany/Deity. June 1937


TOP SECRET

OPERATION SEELÖWE

OKW EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR DER FÜHRER:

The invasion of Britain will begin in 1938 when:

1. Calais is in German hands. [Accomplished]
2. Freighters are available to transport 20 units per turn from Calais to south coast of Britain. [Accomplished]
3. Conquest of continental France is completed. [Operation ROT in progress]

TOP SECRET

Last edited by AGRICOLA on 21-03-2004 at 15:19

	21-03-2004 22:10									#49
	Suffering from ads?

well done
This is the best scenario I have seen to date

	21-03-2004 23:23									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Game: Germany/Deity

I think that there is something very wrong with the 8/10 tech paradigm used in this scenario.

The following table shows the number of technologies (not counting all the "Not German", "Not British" etc.) that the major powers had at the start of the scenario and the number they have in July 1937 (Turn 10).

Britain 33/46
France 32/41
USSR 31/41
Italy 33/40
Germany 32/48

At its present, sustainable rate of 2 tech advances per month, Germany will obtain Nuclear Doctrine (Atomic Bomb) in December 1937.

Also, Germany can finish the entire tech tree some time in '39.

From the looks of it, Britain will not be far behind unless (heaven forbid) someone quickly nukes it back to the stone age.

Seriously, I think the tech paradigm is much too low. I don't think that this should be a nuclear scen until at least '44. Maybe an early but key precursor to Nuclear Doctrine should be an unreachable tech that is given by events to all major powers some time in '44 or '45. Let the race for nuke technology begin at that point.

In a multi-player game the threat of retaliation might keep players from using nukes. That is not the case with AI which uses nukes indiscriminately as soon as it can build them. My experience has been that nukes generally make for boring play.

	23-03-2004 14:12									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: At its present, sustainable rate of 2 tech advances per month, Germany will obtain Nuclear Doctrine (Atomic Bomb) in December 1937. Also, Germany can finish the entire tech tree some time in '39. From the looks of it, Britain will not be far behind unless (heaven forbid) someone quickly nukes it back to the stone age. Seriously, I think the tech paradigm is much too low.

*Moans*

Back to the drawing board.

BTW, which version of civ are you using? (not that I suspect that this matters)

	23-03-2004 18:44									#52
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I hope you are not a member of the school of scen designers that shoots bearers of bad news.

CIV II MGE

German research rate is the result of 10-15 freights delivered monthly to London and a 40% tech rate that gets 1 tech per month. An added benefit is that the German economy is reasonably robust by Aug '37, producing surplus revenues of ~$400 million each month. I have a feeling that one of the intents in the scen was to have Germany in constant economic difficulty.

I've made Nuclear Doctrine (A-bomb) an unreachable tech.

While you are at the drawing board could you also consider the possibility of changing either Engineers or Sappers to a Mv=2 unit so they can keep up with infantry? Sappers (Settlers) would probably make the most sense. They travel pretty light compared to Engineers.

Last edited by AGRICOLA on 23-03-2004 at 19:29

	24-03-2004 05:25									#53
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

If tradaholism is a major cause for an excessive tech rate, you might be able to limit that by (1) shifting the Freight unit away from the freight slot, and (2) giving Inv, Nav, and Fli to all civs from the onset. That should reduce the tech payoff for freight deliveries by 1/2 (non-Freight slot) * 1/2 (Inv) * 1/2 (Nav) * 2/3 (Fli). If my understanding is right, the cumulative effect is a 92% reduction. My woefully uninformed guess is that Agricola discovered Rearmament (Inv) very early. Not sure when Naval Warfare (Nav) or Bomber Doctrine (Fli) entered the picture.

I imagine that high freight delivery payoffs also allowed science to be boosted at the expense of taxes and possibly luxes. Is that right, Agricola? Perhaps the Freight cost should be substantially increased. With fewer and less rewarding trade payoffs, a player might have to take wealth away from science.

	24-03-2004 08:29									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm afraid that I don't follow your reasoning.

The first mention of any difficulty in this scen was by Justinianum.

quote: Originally posted by Justinianum I'm playing as Italy (emperor level) and I'm following an hystorical tech path, being in mid-'39 researching the first monoplane fighter. I'm astonished to see Germany and France with jet fighters . My opponents seems to research 10 times faster than me. Is it all right?

My subsequent comments echo Justinianum's in that research appears to be extraordinarily cheap.

quote: Originally posted by AGRICOLA Your comments seem to explain why at the start Germany needs only ~360 flasks for a tech advance. The results have been puzzling me a bit because freights are generating flasks at a very high rate compared to what is needed for tech advances while the $$ returns have been quite a bit lower than I would have expected, considering the commodity, the number of trade arrows in the home city, the probable number in the destination city and the route taken by freights.

I was not sure of how cheap research is until I did a few numbers.

quote: Originally posted by Agricola I think that there is something very wrong with the 8/10 tech paradigm used in this scenario. The following table shows the number of technologies (not counting all the "Not German", "Not British" etc.) that the major powers had at the start of the scenario and the number they have in July 1937 (Turn 10). Britain 33/46 France 32/41 USSR 31/41 Italy 33/40 Germany 32/48

The problem is that everyone's discovery rate is sky high. Britain has had a discovery rate of 1+ techs per turn and the rest are at or just under 1 per turn. The author clearly did not intend this.

quote: Originally posted by Case All the main civs should develop a tech every two or three turns.

Tradeholism is NOT the source of the problem, it is the only way to play Germany and survive in this scenario.

Finally,

quote: Originally posted by Boco I imagine that high freight delivery payoffs also allowed science to be boosted at the expense of taxes and possibly luxes. Is that right, Agricola?

I wish it were so.

quote: Originally posted by Case The main reasons the trade cash returns are low is that there are no RRs and the trade unit is a caravan and not a freight. As the 1930s and 1940s were a time of protectionism and autarky the low cash returns don't bother me.

That's because he's not playing the scen.

	24-03-2004 14:11									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by AGRICOLA I hope you are not a member of the school of scen designers that shoots bearers of bad news.

No, quite the opposite. I like negative feedback.

quote: I have a feeling that one of the intents in the scen was to have Germany in constant economic difficulty.

Yeah, it was.

quote: While you are at the drawing board could you also consider the possibility of changing either Engineers or Sappers to a Mv=2 unit so they can keep up with infantry? Sappers (Settlers) would probably make the most sense. They travel pretty light compared to Engineers.

Like artillery, I want those fairly powerful units to lag behind the combat units in order to prevent missuse.

quote: Perhaps the Freight cost should be substantially increased. With fewer and less rewarding trade payoffs, a player might have to take wealth away from science.

Combined with swapping the unit's slot that's a rather neat solution. Thanks

	24-03-2004 15:57									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Case Like artillery, I want those fairly powerful units to lag behind the combat units in order to prevent missuse.

Pardon my stupidity, but if that is the case, what is the point of having these units or building them? I've always considered artillery and engineers to be combat units or, at least, part of a combat team. How can one misuse such a unit?

I think its time to take a break from this scen until the revised version comes out. There is no question in my mind that it will be an interesting and very challenging scenario once you get the tech bug out of it.

Best of luck with re-balancing the tech paradigm so the AI rate doesn't get out of hand and force players to use extraordinary measures to try to keep up. I feel a bit sorry for Justinianum who must have been running a pretty standard science % and found his biplanes having to take on jet fighters in '39.

	25-03-2004 14:52									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by AGRICOLA Pardon my stupidity, but if that is the case, what is the point of having these units or building them? I've always considered artillery and engineers to be combat units or, at least, part of a combat team. How can one misuse such a unit?

As all the units already represent combined arms forces, units like Sappers and Corps Artillery are ment to represent the units which were used to back up the line divisions when they hit tough opposition. These units couldn't keep up with rapid offencives and were too valuable to risk in day to day fighting. Basically, their role is to crack strongpoints.

	17-04-2004 18:34									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Any news about this scenario? I'd love to play the final version

	17-04-2004 23:51									#59
	Suffering from ads?

likewise

	20-04-2004 13:45									#60
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Justinianum Any news about this scenario?

Um, no

Now that I'm working full time the following constraints apply:
1) I have less time
2) I now have enough money to buy new games

In short, when I get sick of Warcraft III or chuck a sickie I'll move back to good old Civ and fix this up.