 |
| |
|
|
Eivind IV
|
 |
History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.
Aug 2002
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
"Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933. Under his leadership the country developed into a ruthlessly aggressive totalitarian state. All forms of democratic government and political opposition were soon swept away. By coercion, repression and propaganda, the Nazi Party began to control German life. The Nazis pledged first to restore Germany to its 'rightful' place in Europe, and then to seek world power. The Blitzkrieg era has begun..."
___________________
In October 1936 Italy's Mussolini made an alliance with Germany's Adolf Hitler. Ethiopian trade concessions were extended to Germany (Ethiopia had been conquered by Italy in May). They also declared common policies towards Spain, the Danubian countries, the Soviet Union, and the League of Nations. Mussolini called the new alliance the "Rome-Berlin Axis".
|
Well, well, we meet again! In my constant seeking of perfection for my babies I've done a major face lift to my Blitzkrieg 1936 scenario, the third one to be specific. But with these changes many new feateures such as strategic rivers, optional black and white style graphic style, MP and SP version, optional stackable terrain in both MP and SP, graphical overhawl in general are introduced, along with many many more! Sounds have been introduced as well.
I hope my hours on the designing board have payed off. So, people, enjoy yourself! 
BLITZKRIEG 1936 v.3 - MAIN FILES
BLITZKRIEG 1936 v.3 - SOUNDS
Last edited by Eivind IV on 21-01-2005 at 20:13
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
AGRICOLA
|
|
Canadian bush & Florida
Feb 2003
time: 00:16
|
|
You do ask some interesting questions. IMHO, this one deserves a thread of its own.
I don't think that there is a single set of fun parameters that would apply to all players. We're all individuals and much too different for that. The wide range of available scenarios are the one reason why CIVII still appeals to me and, likely, many others. I haven't played a standard game in years.
I view a scen as a fun problem solving exercise. Most of the time in a good scen this involves some degree of desperation in overcoming greatly superior forces, meeting a time deadline, or both. Nemo's Red Front and your Market-Garden and are my favorite examples of this. These scens have a feature in common in that there is extremely great scope for imaginative strategies and tactics.
In other scens, there is little or no imposed pressure and my fun is generated by looking for ways to take maximum advantage of loopholes in the AI and/or inadvertent windows of opportunity created by a scenarios designer. It becomes a game of wits, especially when playtesting.
IMO, scenarios generally fall into one of two categories, the long statesman or empire building scen that starts a player with very little and asks that he build a dominant civ and the much shorter head basher where there is a battle, campaign or war to fight. Probably as a result of too much empire building in CIV and vanilla CIV2, I much prefer head basher scens. Im sure that others favor the statesman.
Looking at the other side of the fun coin, it is most definitely not fun if the mechanics of playing a scen become unnecessarily laborious.
The two scenarios mentioned above are excellent in that they are difficult to win but very simple to play. The units are straightforward and techs, wonders and city improvements (where applicable) are clearly described and have names that a player can intuitively understand. I have struggled with scens where everything has been renamed to the point where the new names have very little or no relationship to function. It is not particularly fun to play a scen that needs frequent references to the Pedia or where descriptions are so vague as to be useless or even misleading. More than once, I have had to replace labels, Pedia and sections of rules with those from vanilla CIV2.
Similarly, I like maximum clarity in three key areas: roads, railroads and the resource symbols in the city window resource map. I now keep a standard set of simple but highly visible icons for all of these and paste them into the icons and terrain 2 files as needed. I have no objection to white roads if that is what it takes to make them visible and easy to follow across a landscape that obscures brown ones.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AGRICOLA
|
|
Canadian bush & Florida
Feb 2003
time: 00:16
|
|
I'm still playing Japan/Deity with the game now in Jan '41. IMHO, the SP version is mildly challenging. Japan has ~100 cities and is currently active in the eastern Med, South America and East Indies.
There are some problems like only Japan and Germany can build battleships. Can't figure out why.
To make any kind of Blitzkrieg possible, I had to enable engineers to build RR's. Otherwise, I found that the scen moves at a WWI pace . . . . an absolute bore, considering the size of the map.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eivind IV
|
|
History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.
Aug 2002
time: 06:16
|
|
Concerning the BBs, John, I couldn't waste another NOT tech to include everyone but the Axis/Japanese. So it's not a bug, it's merely the generic battleship buildable for everyone. While playing the Axis, just consider these non-pocket battleships.
This scenario is optimized for Multiplayer games, that's why the events are mostly text. I like my scenarios to be educational as well as open season. The AI are supposed to be a neutral factor in the game.
There are two PBEMs games going on over at CDG.
1. Blitzkrieg 1936 v.3 Diplomacy Game
2. Blitzkrieg 1936 v.3 FAST PBEM
Just a little btw, here's an update rules patch:
* Rearranged some stuff in the tech tree
* Weakened the axis/jap BBs
* Changed some names for various things, edited some roles.
Last edited by Eivind IV on 22-02-2005 at 18:18
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Pheeww.
Pleased my post was ignored; The UK began WWII with 6? Carriers, but 15 BB's., two of which were promply sunk. HMS Ark Royal being one. (The Royal Navy always has a ship of this name, without exception.)
The UK in 1939, even though the innovator and inventors of Carriers still couldn't grasp the importance of them, it took the US in the Pacific to show how the Carrier was vastly superior to a battleship before the Royal Navy finally understood how to use the remaining ships the Axis had failed to sink.
Any chance of creating a game based around sea-power and technology? That would be interesting, but say, if choosing to play the Royal Navy would hinder you unlike the US and Japanese? How about a scenario where the (French) Strasbourg and sister went to the US in 1939 as the only neutral power in the world then.
Both were built only to counter the Bismarck and Tirpitz- Imagine if they..... I doubt the awful but needed decision Churchill made in North Africa......about the (Allied) French fleet had they set sail to the US instead of the stroppy French admiral that led to the destruction of the French fleet whilst at anchor, even though the French admiral knew what "Non" meant to the British. (the Germans getting their hands on the last but best two battleships in the globe)
That would be a Civ scenario of interest, as the Srasbourg and sister was better than all RN, German, US and Japanese ships. Just the ownership of these two ships by the US might have changed the course of the war Britain was left with- no 14th British Army in Burma/etc, no Island hopping by the US.
I ramble- to make a Naval scenario would be good. As the AI is so poor in matters naval, a scenario that uses ships would be good?
Toby
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-01-2005 04:59
Attachment: 
Attachment: 
|