 |
| |
|
|
Mike K.
|
|
quote:
UK produced 24.000, USSR 75.000 and the USA 88.000.
Are you still certain the war was not already lost in 1939? |
Considering the Soviet Union and United States were neutral parties until 1941, yes I am certain.
quote:
Hitler wanted to secure Lebensraum. This space was meant to end at the Volga-Arhkangelsk Line (following the Volga River up to somewhere between Yaroslavl and Gorky and the this line was planned straight towards Arkhangelsk). |
The war in the east was also meant as an ideologically motivated crusade against Bolshevism, hence the infamous 'Commissar Order' (immediate execution of Communist party officials embedded in the Soviet Army). Hitler would not tolerate the continued existence of the Communist apparatus.
Last edited by Mike K. on 15-06-2003 at 04:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harry Tuttle
|
 |
of the Hoople Heads
Mar 2003
time: 00:28
|
|
Alright folks, enough with the history lesson. As Curt said, this is a scenario thread, not an opinion thread. If you want to discuss what-if questions please use some other thread, or head over to the Colosseum thread at CF. Historical commentary is great, but I'd like to make some headway on this scenario before the seasons change, again.
ANYWAYS, as for missions, I think the capture of the Middle eastern fields would be a good strategic mission. A nice battle between the Brits and (as Churchill would say) Nah-sties, would be a good start. I could put a time limit on the mission, with the deadline bringing with it British reinforcements, or something that would make the taking of the oil fields extra hard. Thank you Curt.
Some other mission ideas: A race to capture some Uranium mines in the Congo, a race to capture an allied agent, and a secret unit mission that would uncover a hidden unit unatainable through regular means.
Any other ideas???
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harry Tuttle
|
|
of the Hoople Heads
Mar 2003
time: 00:28
|
|
Well, I was working on finishing the terrain, which is now 99% finished, and I thought of something. A good scenario not only should have great gameplay, but great graphics too.
Now, I know what your saying: "Duh Harry, could've told you that one", but think about it. How many scenarios out there truly take advantage of Civ 2's graphic overlay when applying terrain? Have you ever built a fortress over a mine, which is over some sort of resource? Can't quite see all three very clearly, can you?
So many designers try to cram all these nice looking graphics into their scenarios, but then have them get blurred as players build up their territory. My solution: Terrain Modules. By simply designing the terrain to seamlessly integrate any scenario can can have top notch terrain that the player can both see, appreciate, and understand without having to resort to identifying the different layers with the cursor.
Just a little something I've done with my terrain. Hope you like it. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harry Tuttle
|
|
of the Hoople Heads
Mar 2003
time: 00:28
|
|
Not simpler really. It's all about strategic placement of your graphics. You can pretty much do this with any kind of graphic, hi-res, Nemo-esque, you name it.
Picture this: Let's say you've replaced the normal Civ2 "buffalo" resource with a custom resource called "oil fields" and the "mine" improvement with "factory". The "oil fields" consist of a a few derricks on the left of the diamond and a oil tank on the right. The "factory" improvement consists of a building with some smokestacks. The oil field looks nice by itself, but when a settler puts a "factory" on the oil field diamond you suddenly have a factory overlapping the oil derricks and the oil tank, creating a terrain diamond that is not all that realistic looking or aesthetically pleasing. Plus, the "factory" may hide the fact that the diamond has a valuable resource underneath it.
The solution? Map out beforehand how the different graphics will look when they are grouped on the same terrain diamond. Instead of having the "factory" appear smack in the middle of the diamond why not place it off to the side where the oil tank is located? When the oil field is mined the "factory" graphic will overlap the tank, creating the look of a orderly, bustling industrial area. Both the resource and the mine graphic are clearly represented, plus you have just created a schnazzy little piece of eye candy for your scenario.
You can even add another addition to this mix. Let's say you want to protect this valuable piece of property from your enemies, so you build the "fortress" improvement on the terrain diamond. Since you thought ahead, the fortress seemlessly overlaps part of the diamond, replacing some grassy area from the "oil field" and a parking lot from the "factory" without compromising the objects represented on the diamond. A few sandbags next to a derrick, a fence next to the factory and suddenly you have a cool looking fortified industrial area.
The only trick is that you have to figure out how exactly universal improvements like your mine and fortress will overlap all the terrains that you can posibly build them upon.
Bottom line: More eye-candy, easier terrain recognition, and it just looks cool.
Other ideas: For a "Vineyard"-like scenario - A "fruit orchard" terrain square containing rows of fruit trees. The mine improvement could be changed to a bunch of workers with ladders and baskets. When the improvement is built on the diamond the result would look like the orchard is being harvested and men are actually climbing up to pick the trees. In essence the new graphic would look like there is action in the orchard instead of there just being a bunch of trees.
Neat huh?
Last edited by Harry Tuttle on 14-07-2003 at 05:28
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-06-2003 23:33
Attachment: 
Attachment: 
Attachment: 
|
