 |
| |
|
|
Steve Clark
|
 |
Colorado Springs, CO
Oct 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
UUs. There shouldnt be too many or else balancing will be hard
Germany: Panzer (encompasses Tiger, Mark, Panther etc etc)
United Kingdom: Dominion Infantry (Comprised of Aussies, NZ, the toughest infantry in the world after the Americans, Finns, and Ivan  )
United States of America: B-17 bomber (only country in the world with good heavy bombers)
France: Partisans (vive la Resistance!)
Soviet Union: T-34 (about equal with Panzer)
Italy: Underwater Chariots (a torpedo with 2 frogmen on bord who drive it underwater and steer it towards a ship (these Italians were so pathetic inthe 20th Century that they lost to an Abyssinian Army whose most sophisticated weapong was the spear. This is the only example in history where a modern army has lost to a primitive one)
Turks: None
Norway: None
Finland: Alpine Troops (same as in civ2 but with a higher attack)
Belgium: None
The Netherlands: Flood Troops (Flood 3/4 of the country to protect the other 1/4) No actually I don't know
Yugoslavia: None
Sweden: None
Spain:None
Portugal: None
Switzerland: Citizen Army (strong on defense) |
Good grief, have you not played Captain Nemo's fantastic WW2 scenarios?!?! Each of the major sides were completely redone with customized units. There must have been at least 20 per side, all with their unique values and graphics. Why are you thinking in terms of one or two Unique Units?!?!?! Scenarios are designed for total customization: tech tree, units, movements, map, events, etc. that it becomes a new game. Just take all of the default units listed in the files (txt and gif) and replace them with historically accurate ones, thus they ALL become unique.
One other thing to consider (I'm sure this has been brought up) is the length of time it takes for one civ to make one turn. You don't want more the 4 opponents.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Field Marshal Klesh
|
 |
Klesh Marshal Field
Jan 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
I am glad someone is talking some sense in here!
There certainly needs to be a plethora of individual unints. There should only be a relative few units that are generic, and multi-national.
And whoever is talking about the Maus as a representative of German armour...geez. They made 2 of them, and both were captured before they saw any type of action. :rollleyes:
I don't have alot of time here, but here are some ideas for more units merely for the Germans...
Germans
Tanks:
PzKw's II, III, IV, V (Panther), VI (Tiger), VI ausf B (KingTiger).
Assault Guns/ Tank Hunters/ etc:
Hummel
Wespe
Hetzer
Jagdpanzer
Jagdpanther
Jagdtiger
Nashorn
Puma
SdKfz-251... and their variants...
Planes:
Bf-109
Fw-190
Ju-87
Ju-88
Me-110
He-111
Me-262
Blah blah blah blah blah... one could go one forever... Infantry, AT guns, AA guns...
Here is a sample of Nemo's units for CivII. Now give the designers over at SLeague a few months and we shall be pumping out good things if CivIII is all it is supposed to be.
There are a few others who modify Nemo's and Alex's units in the same style, so there is a catalogue of almost anything you could think of WWII wise...
Thing Big... Bigger than you have ever thought!
-FMK.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Felch
|
 |
Germantown, Maryland
Sep 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
My two cents:
Given that Firaxis is almost certainly making a perfectly good WWII scenario already, we should consider how we could use a unique perspective to make this one different.
I think that having a world wide perspective (the map is supposedly closer to the giga-maps than the traditional large world map) and starting from 1933 could give a different spin. The start at 1939 was largely accidental. The body of evidence indicates that the Nazi leadership wasn't planning on any wars for several more years, and that they didn't anticipate the reaction the Allies had towards the invasion of Poland.
Furthermore it might be interesting to have an open tech tree. That is to say, civ-specific units will be the exception rather than the norm. After all the differences in aircraft and tank design were either broad enough that they can be easily categorized (by seperating the two engines bombers from the four engine bombers for example) or else largely a matter of details that are difficult to abstract into the civ battle system (e.g. the differences between British and American heavy bombers such as the Lancaster and Liberator).
This is not to say that civ-specific units don't have their place. However, instead of arguing about what models of German armored vehicles should be included, we could simply say that there are certain types of vehicles and anyone with the technology can build them. Civ-specific units could be used to indicate that different armies stressed different ideals and tactics. Thus the Americans may have a B-29, the Soviets the penal battalion (petty criminals drafted into service to perform suicide missions), the British could have commandos, the Nazis could have U-boats, and so on. However, most units would be generic (light armor, medium armor, heavy armor, destroyer, light bomber, jet fighter, paratroopers, marines, rifle company, etc.)
Y'all are prolly more into realism, so I'm not expecting much support on this. But so it goes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Field Marshal Klesh
|
|
Klesh Marshal Field
Jan 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Felch X
My two cents:
Given that Firaxis is almost certainly making a perfectly good WWII scenario already, we should consider how we could use a unique perspective to make this one different. |
You mean like their perfectly good one for CivII? 
quote:
Furthermore it might be interesting to have an open tech tree. That is to say, civ-specific units will be the exception rather than the norm. After all the differences in aircraft and tank design were either broad enough that they can be easily categorized (by seperating the two engines bombers from the four engine bombers for example) or else largely a matter of details that are difficult to abstract into the civ battle system (e.g. the differences between British and American heavy bombers such as the Lancaster and Liberator). |
Right, but when you have 80 somethin units, you can afford for the Germans to have a heavy bomber, an american one, and even a british one. You know what I mean. It CAN be devided to have an open tech tree, with each nation having their historical units with stats.
quote:
This is not to say that civ-specific units don't have their place. However, instead of arguing about what models of German armored vehicles should be included, we could simply say that there are certain types of vehicles and anyone with the technology can build them. Civ-specific units could be used to indicate that different armies stressed different ideals and tactics. Thus the Americans may have a B-29, the Soviets the penal battalion (petty criminals drafted into service to perform suicide missions), the British could have commandos, the Nazis could have U-boats, and so on. However, most units would be generic (light armor, medium armor, heavy armor, destroyer, light bomber, jet fighter, paratroopers, marines, rifle company, etc.)
Y'all are prolly more into realism, so I'm not expecting much support on this. But so it goes. |
Yeah man, to me seeing the germans and the soviets fighting with the same tanks is kinda dumb. I am a huge WWII buff, and it just doesnt seem right. Sometimes concessions have to be made in the larger scenario with more units, sometimes you'll get this generic light tank. But for the most part, to me at least, Historical Realism is what a scenario is all about.
To each his own...
-FMK.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dry
|
 |
Brussels
Sep 2000
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh
I am glad someone is talking some sense in here!
There certainly needs to be a plethora of individual unints. There should only be a relative few units that are generic, and multi-national.
|
I totally disagree with this.
The error made here is the same as for nation=civ.
At the civ2 scale (and I guess civ3 it will be the same), the units that are present on the map cannot represent given specific historical units. They merely represent units whose equipment were based on these tanks/planes...
To be accurate, the units, at civ scale should be named "armored units" or "infantry", just the way they are named in civ1/2.
BUT,
It is true that theSoviets had T-34 since 1939, but they didn't used them in independent armored units, so I see no use of representing those tanks so early.
Germans in 39-40 had only bad or average tanks (PzKw I, II, III), but they used them the way they should be used, making them a very effective weapon.
It is also true that because the German tank tactical was better than the one of any other countries, it also make sense to give the german tank units better statistics.
So, as civ units represent divisions, or even armies, it is the strength of a division or army that should be given. So, as a german panzer unit was better than any other one, let's give them a strong symbolic name, basically the name of a famous german tank. The choice of that symbolic name is to be taken among: Tigre, Panther or whatever.
But, this - let us say - Panther unit should symbolize ANY better then average german panzer unit.
From my point of view, it is nonesense to represent every little historical tank model, just because a PzKw IV division was used the same way and with same efficiency as a PzKw III division, but just 1 year later.
The same may apply to Finn Infantry (Sissu or Sissi if I remember well my ASL games), US planes (or marines! No one here spoke about US marines), British Gurkhas, ...
So even if Soviet Union (and not Russia) had some T-34, best tanks in 1940, they should not be represent in a civ scenario, beacause of the way they used them.
If you really want an effective Soviet tank, you can introduce the first modern heavy tank, the JosephStalin II by the end of 1944.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rasbelin
|
 |
Tampere (Tammerfors), Finland
Nov 1999
time: 07:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dry
Germans in 39-40 had only bad or average tanks (PzKw I, II, III), but they used them the way they should be used, making them a very effective weapon.
|
Not to mention the British Vickers. 
quote:
It is also true that because the German tank tactical was better than the one of any other countries, it also make sense to give the german tank units better statistics.
|
And they were using better technology
(esp. the weaponry of the tanks).
quote:
The same may apply to Finn Infantry (Sissu or Sissi if I remember well my ASL games)
|
It should still be Finnish Infantry, and not Guerilla. 
quote:
If you really want an effective Soviet tank, you can introduce the first modern heavy tank, the JosephStalin II by the end of 1944.
|
...=IS-2, but the KV-3 is also a good alternative.
But Katyusha BM-31 would perhaps be a better UU
for the Soviet Union.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PRIDE OF MOKUM
|
 |
Enschede, The Netherlands
Sep 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
If The Netherlands are actually included they should have two, well maybe three UU's.f
Most people don't know it but the Dutch military was actually upgrading their forces. As usual our government did it far too late for the upgrade to have effect. We were fighting the Germans with WW1 weaponry mostly but there were some units which were a pain in the ass of the German invaders, only because of the relative small number of these forces and the rest of the Dutch army, the Germans succeeded in conquering our Kingdom. These units were the G-1A Fokker Fighter , which was far superior to German fighter aircraft those days, but only 23 were available to the Royal Dutch Airforce. The other was the PAG, I think it stand for Persoonlijk Antitank Geschut, which is Dutch for Personnel Antitank Gun. Same story. It could destroy most German tanks in 1940, but we had only a handfull of them. Here's a possible UU which is Marines. Yeah marines. The Royal Dutch Marine Corps is the second oldest marine corps in the world after the british. German paratroopers landing in Rotterdam called these man 'Black Devils', they had a pretty difficult task in taking Rotterdam, again larger numbers of troops and the bombing of Rotterdam (one of the first bombardments in ww2), in which some 800 people were killed and 24000 houses were destroyed, did it. Furthermore Holland should be included for it actually had a strategic value (really!! ). Hitler only invaded our country cause we had the huge port of Rotterdam and he was scared like hell that the allies would just take and use Rotterdam and Dutch airbases to land troops and invade Germany and especially the Ruhr area. That's why the Allies commenced operation Market Garden, it's soooo f*cking easy to reach Germany's main industrial area from Holland. At the other end of the world the Dutch Pacific Fleet (allright like one cruiser, a few destroyers and subs) with some Commonwealth cruisers held off a Japanese fleet which was moving towards Australia. The Allied fleet was defeated but somehow the Japs never came back to try and invade Australia. Thus Holland should be included, with or without UU's . I agree it's just too small to withstand those German panzers and all, but it should be included, maybe along with Denmark, Norway and Balkan countries. That would be the solution, those nations are destined to be conquered but they should not be left out! Ok I talked enough for now
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
Yet another joke springs to mind. It's a bit long, but it's worth it.
To provide a personal background to his history class, the teacher invited a WWII flying ace to his high school to give a lecture. The teacher gives a brief introduction, then invites the old pilot up to describe the most dangerous mission he ever flew.
"One fine morning I took off from our base in England to escort bombers into Germany. As soon as we crossed the Channel, we knew something was wrong. The sky was full of enemy planes. Before we could even say 'Tallyho', they were on us. One of the Fokkers got behind me, but I managed to shake him. I shot down two more Fokkers that were in front of me, and saw dozens more of the Fokkers go down"
At each repetition of the word "Fokker", the children laugh harder and harder. Finally, the teacher gets up to explain.
"Children, the Fokker was a very important design of plane in both world wars"
The veteran looks in puzzlement at the teacher and says: "Sure it was, but these Fokkers were Messerschmidts"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Falconius
|
 |
Pleasant Hills, PA
May 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
Well, you can all put your scenario plans on hold for now. What you are proposing in this thread is impossible, because the editor, as of now, is a worthless piece of garbage!
To begin with, starting locations are ALWAYS random. So you can't place the Russians in Russia, for instance.
What's more, you can't create cities, only starting locations!
And, while it may not matter for this particular scenario, only global maps are possible (so you can't have strictly European scenarios).
All of these were possible using the old Civ II editor, for crying out loud! I am unbelievably disappointed in this useless piece of crap they have the nerve to call a map editor!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
Hopefully, if the Civ3 patch re-introduces the SMAC concept of allies sharing cities and military infrastructure. Then it will allow scenario makers to seperate out the Pacific Allies into seperate nations (U.K, Australia, U.S.A etc). This was one of the reasons I had so wanted this concept included in the game, and why leaving it out seems such a GIANT step backwards!!!
Anyway, lets keep our fingers crossed and hope the patch makers have come to their senses on this matter!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mfauzi
|
|
Singapore
Nov 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Hopefully, if the Civ3 patch re-introduces the SMAC concept of allies sharing cities and military infrastructure. Then it will allow scenario makers to seperate out the Pacific Allies into seperate nations (U.K, Australia, U.S.A etc). This was one of the reasons I had so wanted this concept included in the game, and why leaving it out seems such a GIANT step backwards!!!
Anyway, lets keep our fingers crossed and hope the patch makers have come to their senses on this matter!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker |
Yeah, I liked that feature in SMAC where you can sent in your units into allied cities. I wonder why they took the feature out. After all, Civ III took the engine from SMAC, I don't see why they didn't retain it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
diegoami
|
|
quote:
Italy: Underwater Chariots (a torpedo with 2 frogmen on bord who drive it underwater and steer it towards a ship (these Italians were so pathetic inthe 20th Century that they lost to an Abyssinian Army whose most sophisticated weapong was the spear. This is the only example in history where a modern army has lost to a primitive one)
|
What about the British who were slaughtered in Afghanistan and Sudan? And Custer's army who lost to the native Indians? Americans in Vietnam? Soviet Union in Afghanistan?
Abyssinians had not only spears. They had rifles.
And Italy, in the end, managed to occupy Abyssinia and defeat the local army (killing several civilians by the way). Unlike Americans in Vietnam.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
diegoami
|
|
Hi
I just do not think there can be only one ultimate scenario about WWII. Have a look, there are at least ten WWII scenarios for Civ II. But having the 16 Civs Cap, you can now create several scenarios, each one focussing on a particular juncture in the war.
(I remember the "Cruel War" scenario, focusing on the war in the Atlantic between Axis submarines and Allied ships)
Has anybody figured out how to create events? There is no such file as events.txt. Without it, Germany could just stay peaceful and win through culture or space race!
Anyway, the following is about a scenario I would be willing to play..
When creating a scenario, you just cannot include every one, and you must lump countries together.
Creating a Europe scenario, I think leaving out Poland would be a major mistake (which fought both the Nazi and Soviet Union), but I would lump Poland with Slovakia and Baltic Republics. I would not lump Italy together with Germany (Italy turned on Germany in 1943). Danemark and Norway could be lumped together. So that is my proposal, assuming you start after the Anschluss & invasion of Czech Republic and Italy's Albania invasion (April 1939)
1 USA (enters late in the war)
2 Britain
3 France
4 Germany & Austria & Czech Republic
5 Italy & Albania
6 Soviet Union
7 Yugoslavia
8 Poland & Slovakia & Baltic Republics
9 Danemark & Norway & Iceland
10 Sweden & Switzerland & Portugal & Ireland
11 Benelux Countries
12 Turkey
13 Greece
14 Spain
15 Romania & Hungary & Bulgaria (sided with Germany)
16 Finnland
Middle East and Africa would belong mostly to Britain, France and
Italy (Libia).
Of course one could argue whether Austria and Czech Republic should be separate, whether Yugoslavia should be regarded as a whole...
Iceland could be lumped with Britain
, Bulgaria with Spain,
Finnland with Romania & Hungary & Bulgaria,
Benelux Countries with France (they fought almost at the same time against Germany).
Hope I did not forget any country.
Some civilization would be wiped out soon, but towns would retain their nationalities and "resist".
Bye
Diego
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
Here are my suggestions for civs in a WWII scenario:
Firstly, for the European theatre only:
1. U.S.A (has MDP with Britian)
2. British Commonwealth (inlcudes Canada, Australia and colonies like Palestine and Egypt-Sudan)
3. Germany
4. Italy
5. Scandanavia
6. Poland
7. France (inlcudes colonies in Algiers etc.)
8. Greece
9. Soviet Union
10. Serbia
11. Croatia
12. Turkey
13. Iberia (Spain and Portugal)
14. Middle East
15. Neutral Powers 1 (Axis Aligned)
16. Neutral Powers 2 (Allies Aligned)
In the Pacific theatre, my votes would be for:
1. British protectorates (India, Singapore, Malaya)
2. U.S.A
3. Japan
4. China
5. Korea
6. Thailand
7. French Indochina
8. Dutch East Indies
9. Australia (includes New Guinea)
10. New Zealand
11. Mongolia
12. Neutral Powers 1 (Axis Aligned)
13. Neutral Powers 2 (Allies Aligned)
For a total World War Scenario, I'd have to say:
1. British Commonwealth (includes Canada, Australia and Britains colonial holdings)
2. U.S.A
3. Nazi Germany
4. France (includes all Asian and African colonies)
5. Holland (mostly for Dutch East Indies)
6. Scandanavia
7. Poland
8. Greece
9. Balkans
10. Japan
11. China (includes Korea)
12. Turkey
13. U.S.S.R
14. Italy
15. Neutral Powers 1 (Axis Aligned)
16. Neutral Powers 2 (Allies Aligned)
Of course all my suggestions above depend on the following:
a) A complete scripting language and events editor
b) the ability to adjust corruption, war-weariness and unhappiness levels on a city to city basis (to reflect the anger of Nazi-occupied cities in Hungary and Checzhoslovakia and the ennui of British and French colonies in Asia and Middle East!)
c) The ability to edit diplomatic relations, AI personalities and natural loyalties (to account for the alignment of the Neutral powers as well as the other major governments)
Anyway, sorry for the length of the post and I hope I haven't offended anyone by leaving out their favourite nation!!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mfauzi
|
|
Singapore
Nov 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
In the pacific theatre, shouldn't Australia and New Zealand be lumped together (or lumped together with the British Commonwealth)?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-10-2001 01:16
. For US, THE big grand strategic question throughout the war was how much of its resources to devote to Pacific, versus Europe. The point of doing WW2 in Civ, rather than in a more traditional war game, would be to address hese kind of grand strategic/ resource allocation issues. Indeed this would be a VERY good test of how well Civ3 works. 
Attachment: 
|
