Great War (WWI) scenario?

[Rasbelin]

There has been some discussion on what
civs should be included in a WWII scenario.
I had a brainwave while reading the postings;
why not also make a Great War scenario for Civ III,
if there's not one included with the game!

My suggestion as civs and leaders in the scenario
are...

Russia - Czar Nicholas II
Germany - Wilhelm II
Austria-Hungary - Franz Josef
France - Georges Clemenceau (PM) or
Raymond Poincare (president)
Britain - Lloyd George
Italy - Victor Emmanuel III
Greece - Eleutherios Venizelos
Ottoman empire - Enver Pasa
(sorry, couldn't get the Turkish "s with a tail")

I haven't thought through the UU's, sorry.
I'll post them later.

OT: Is anyone else interested to make a Great War scenario?

___________________________
Edit: added the forgotten Greece. :scared:

[Rasbelin]

BTW, other minor civs could be Sweden,
Netherlands, Belgium and Spain.

Sweden - Gustav V
Netherlands - Wilhelmina
Belgium - Albert
Spain - Alfonso XIII

[Faboba]

While I'm widely known not to be particularly pro-american I don't think you should overlook them. Though they didn't play a major part in the fighting till right at the very end, they did help with financing it quite a bit.

( I'm not interested PERSONALLY but I'm willing to bet if it isn't one of the scenarios the game ships with you can bet there'll be about 20 made within the first six months - what happenes when you give civ starved players an editor. )

p.s- Serbia as well? An ally of France ( and consequently Russia ) they started the whole bloody thing by assasinating the Austrian Crown Prince ( so one may argue that the Austrians, though maybe taking it a bit far, were in the right which makes the allies 'the baddies'. Food for thought )

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Faboba
While I'm widely known not to be particularly pro-american I don't think you should overlook them.

Oh my goodness! I have forgot US! :o

United States - Woodrow Wilson

( I'm not interested PERSONALLY but I'm willing to bet if it isn't one of the scenarios the game ships with you can bet there'll be about 20 made within the first six months - what happenes when you give civ starved players an editor. )

But many of them will be lousy (IMO).

p.s- Serbia as well?

Er... wasn't Serbia a part of Austria-Hungary? :confused:
Gavrilo Princip murdered that fat old prince, because
the "Black Hand" group wanted an independent Yugoslavia.

P.S. Sarajevo isn't in today's Serbia.

[Dr. Nick]

Rather than forgetting the US, you forgot a much more important area: The Balkan Powderkeg! Serbia, Bulgaria, Rumania, Montenegro, any quasi-independent nations in the Balkans deserve being there.

And if you want to make it full blown scenario, you also need to include the Turks and the Emirates of the Hedjaz.

As to the UU:

Russia - Cossacks
Germany - Storm Troopers/Big Bertha. Possibly U-boat as well.
Austria-Hungary - Field Artillery (Skoda works)
France - Foreign Legion?
Britain - Superdreadnaughts
Italy - Dunno.
Greece - Dunno.
Ottoman empire - Nothing really. :D

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Faboba
p.s- Serbia as well? An ally of France ( and consequently Russia ) they started the whole bloody thing by assasinating the Austrian Crown Prince ( so one may argue that the Austrians, though maybe taking it a bit far, were in the right which makes the allies 'the baddies'. Food for thought )

:hmmm: The British could have prevented the war if they had made their intentions clear. But that is a debate best left to Imran.

Also I don't think France and Serbia were alligned. IIRC Austo-Hungary put pressure on Serbia, and the Russians alligned themselves to protect Serbia. When Germany got involved by supporting Austria-Hungary the French were called upon by the Russians. Britain got involved "officially" due to a pact with Belgium, but there were other obvious reasons to get involved.

It is a bizarre fact that in both WW Britain declared war on Germany and not the other way around.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by El Awrence
Rather than forgetting the US, you forgot a much more important area: The Balkan Powderkeg! Serbia, Bulgaria, Rumania, Montenegro, any quasi-independent nations in the Balkans deserve being there.

They were imporatnt too, I can agree with you.
I just thought too many civs might confuse the player.

And if you want to make it full blown scenario, you also need to include the Turks and the Emirates of the Hedjaz.

Turks? Pardon, but then you should add 10 years to the
hour glass. :D

As to the UU:

Ottoman empire - Nothing really.

A certain officer named Mustafa Kemal. ;)

[Dr. Nick]

Originally posted by Rasbelin
Turks? Pardon, but then you should add 10 years to the
hour glass. :D

What do you mean? The Turks were in WWI...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

A certain officer named Mustafa Kemal

aka Attaturk

[Alfonsus72]

To make the game historically accurated, and now that the 16 civs and the increased map size make it possible, the balkans minor nations should be included:

Serbia + Montenegro
Romania
Bulgary



In fact, war started due to the tension between Austria-Hungary and Russia in the Balkans theatre.

Other important:

Irish rebels- supported by germans.


Due to the importance of strategic resources trade, some trading nations could be added (Sweden). Some could appear even out of the map, as the USA used to be represented in WW1 and WW2 european scenarios, making the german submarine blockade of Britain simulable, I´m thinking in the Colonial empires of England and France, as prime resources supporters.

[Alexander I]

Great ideas, folks!

What if you could make it that the whole war was shaped in another direction. What I mean is...

Bismarck's plan for continuing German success ran like this.

There are five great European powers.

Germany, France, Britain, Russia, Austria-Hungary.

As long as German is allied with at least two of these, they will win any war they fight.

So you see the problem in the first world war. Imbalance, and continuing stalemate. What if the alliances could be shifted. Britain with the Germans and Austrians perhaps?

Could it be a historical remake? Alternate history? Or, more importantly, could the CivIII engine handle it?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by El Awrence


What do you mean? The Turks were in WWI...

The "sick man of Europe" was still called the Ottoman Empire (final dissolution in 1924).

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by El Awrence

What do you mean? The Turks were in WWI...

Not the Turks, idiot! :mad:
The Ottomans!

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia

aka Attaturk

Not during the Great War.
And it's Atatürk, not Attaturk.
Touché! :p

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The "sick man of Europe" was still called the Ottoman Empire (final dissolution in 1924).

Or that what remained of it after the Great War. :D

[jsw363]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Also I don't think France and Serbia were alligned. IIRC Austo-Hungary put pressure on Serbia, and the Russians alligned themselves to protect Serbia. When Germany got involved by supporting Austria-Hungary the French were called upon by the Russians. Britain got involved "officially" due to a pact with Belgium, but there were other obvious reasons to get involved.

I concur, IIRC Russia had this whole notion of Pan-Slavism that dictated that they protect their fellow slavs living under Hapsburg rule. Serbia was an independent country, but many in Serbia wanted to create a Yugoslavia (Greater Slav State) by incorporating Hapsburg lands.

I would list the players as follows:

Germany
France
Britain
Russia
Austria-Hungary
Ottoman Empire

The other two spaces I would most likely reserve for Serbia and Belgium because of the important roles that they played in the war. I don't know how you would classify other states if you started in 1914, but if you limit it to eight players it would be difficult.

[Dr. Nick]

They were still Turks, Ottoman or not! :p :D

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by El Awrence
They were still Turks, Ottoman or not!

But they didn't call them selves Turks before
the Young Turks Revoltution. Or was it even
after 1927? Anyway: touché! :banp:

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by jsw363

I would list the players as follows:

Germany
France
Britain
Russia
Austria-Hungary
Ottoman Empire

And let's just not forget Victor Emmanuel III and
his Italians from that list.

[Rasbelin]

Oh, forgot Greece. :eek:

[Pseud0nym]

Seems all good to me. The only input I have here is that you should somehow put mustard gas into the scenario. I 'm not sure exactly how that would be accomplished, but it definately needs to be in there.

[Immortal Wombat]

The Triple Alliance:
Germany
Austria-Hungary
Italy

The Triple Entente:
Russia
France
Britain

Wildcards:
Ottoman empire
Greece
The Balkans
USA

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
The Triple Alliance:
Germany
Austria-Hungary
Italy


Italian SA would be the ability to switch allegiances, at will, with no political consequences. :cute:

[Mongoloid Cow]

The sides might be:

1) German Empire
2) Austrian-Hungarian Empire
3) Russian Empire
4) British Empire
5) French Empire
6) Ottoman Empire (UU Janissaries - not sure if they were illegal or not yet)

and others could include:
7) Italian Empire
8) Serbia
9) Bulgaria
10) Romania
11) Belgium
12) Sweden
13) Greece
14) Netherlands
15) Some civ to be all neutral nations (Denmark, Switzerland, etc)
16) America (way off in the Atlantic and can only get involved in doing anything if specific events happen)

[Faboba]

You'e right. It was Russia was allied with Serbia and France with Russia ( I can never remember which one joined the war first... )

Serbia was not ( afaik cause it would make no sense ) part of Austro-Hungary because it was between those two bodies the war started.

A serbian terrorist group ( the black hand ) assasinated the Austrian Crown Prince ( Ferdinand? ). Austria was calm and level headed about this, and immediately declared war on the whole of Serbia for the actions of one group ( cough. America. cough. Afganistan ).

Russia stepped in for Serbia which obviously couldn't defend it'self against such a vast enemy and France and Germany, one bitter about the Franco-Prussian war, can't remember which, jumped in two, France for it's Ally Russia and Germany for it's Austria. Britain joined in with France and Russia because it had recently signed alliances with them and it was pissed with Germany ( a recently formed 'upstart' nation ) rapidly building it's own navy to rival the Empire's ( or what remained of it. )

Which is the funny thing about WW1. There were no 'bad guys'. I suppose 'The Black Hand'. And as WW2 came as a direct result to the horrendos things we did to Germany after WW1 then really terrorism has been to blame for the two greatest conflicts the world has ever seen ( at least in modern times ).

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Faboba
Serbia was not ( afaik cause it would make no sense ) part of Austro-Hungary because it was between those two bodies the war started.

It was the annexation of B-H by Audtria and the desire for Serbia to create a "Yugoslavia" which included B-H that caused the tiff.

A serbian terrorist group ( the black hand ) assasinated the Austrian Crown Prince ( Ferdinand? ).

Yep. Franz-Ferdinand.

Austria was calm and level headed about this, and immediately declared war on the whole of Serbia for the actions of one group ( cough. America. cough. Afganistan ).

Actually they formulated a list of demands, for everyone to see and to agree with at an international convention. Only after the convention, and the Serbian refusal to only one of the points, did the Austrians declare war.

The assasination was late June, the first declaration of war early August, about the same length of time the US waited for the Afghanistan incident. ;)

Russia stepped in for Serbia which obviously couldn't defend it'self against such a vast enemy and France and Germany, one bitter about the Franco-Prussian war, can't remember which, jumped in two,

"Germany" kicked French hide, annexing A-L after laying siege to Paris in ~1871. It also lead to the formation of Germany as a nation state

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow

6) Ottoman Empire (UU Janissaries - not sure if they were illegal or not yet)

Janissaries didn't excist in the Great War. :(

BTW, Greece and Italy must be included.
At least the Greeks are vital, if the Ottoman Empire
is in.

[Rasbelin]

I'm still proposing my original list (inc. US)
as civs in the Great War scenario.

[Peter Triggs]

Originally posted by Pseud0nym
Seems all good to me. The only input I have here is that you should somehow put mustard gas into the scenario. I 'm not sure exactly how that would be accomplished, but it definately needs to be in there.


That's a good idea! But I think you'd need a scripting language to do that effectively.

[Dr. Nick]

Technically, Britain declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Belgium.

[Ecthy]

Let me summarize it all again then ;)

28. 07. Austro-Hungarian Empire declares war on Serbia
29. 07. Russia begins mobilization of its army
31. 07. Germany demands Russia to quit mobilization and issues France to keep neutrality in the case of a war between Germany and Russia
The demands are ignored/rejected
01. 08. Germany declares war on Russia.
03. 08. Germany declares war on France.
04. 08. The German army enters Belgium, causing the declaration of war by Great Britain, to Germany

Alas, I don't have the dates here for the Allied countries declaring war on Austria.

The Ottoman empire didn't enter the war before October, 29 1914. Bulgary entered on the side of the Central Powers on October, 14 1915.

Japan entered on the Allied side on August 23 1914, Italy on the 23rd of March 1915. Others are:

09. 03. 1916: Portugal
27. 08. 1916: Romania

06. 04. 1917: United States of America :q: ;)
27. 06. Greece

I left out those South American tiny countries that entered the war for only god knows which reasons... Montenegro joined Serbia on the 5th of August, 1914, San Marino followed Italy on 3rd of June, 1915

everything should be comprehensable now, apart from the missing figures for Austrian entering of war against Russia and the Entente

Would the UK have entered the war if Germany hadn't marched through Belgium? I think so, because the pact between Great Britain and Belgium was like 100 years old ar that time, an apparent pretext.

[Dauphin]

Would the UK have entered the war if Germany hadn't marched through Belgium? I think so, because the pact between Great Britain and Belgium was like 100 years old ar that time, an apparent pretext.

Question that I have often asked, if we didn't presumably Germany would have won the war. How would it all have panned out from there?

[Ecthy]

I'm afraid the French would have beaten the crap out of us if we hadn't marched through Belgium...

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
I'm afraid the French would have beaten the crap out of us if we hadn't marched through Belgium...

You might be right. I suppose they would have dug
themselves into trenches for a much longer time,
than "just" 3 years.

[Sandman]

So...

Could the German player move Lenin to St Petersburg and trigger the Russian Revolution?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
I'm afraid the French would have beaten the crap out of us if we hadn't marched through Belgium...

The French had a "defence" mentality. Why bother attacking at all, just ensure the Siegfried line wasn't breached and focus on expanding into Russia.

[Dr. Nick]

Siegfried line? In 1914? ;)

[Dauphin]

D'oh! :o

What were the defences called before WW1?

[Ecthy]

I'm sure it was not the Maginot line, what do you think? ;)

[HisMajestyBOB]

See Jeszenka's Second Reich scenarion for inspiration. Personally, i think the US should not be included (just give units to the Allies) Also, France and Britain should be one civ, so they can cooperate effectively. Finally, a way to simulate the Russian Revoltuion and Russia's withdrawl from the war would be nice (maybe w/ events?)

[Rasbelin]

So the conclusion is that the list "should"
be something like this:

Russia - Czar Nicholas II
Germany - Wilhelm II
Austria-Hungary - Franz Josef
France - Georges Clemenceau (PM) or
Raymond Poincare (president)
Britain - Lloyd George
United States - Woodrow Wilson
Italy - Victor Emmanuel III
Greece - Eleutherios Venizelos
Ottoman empire - Enver Pasa

[jsw363]

Originally posted by Big Crunch

Question that I have often asked, if we didn't presumably Germany would have won the war. How would it all have panned out from there?

Part of the reason that the war started was because Germany didn't believe that Britain would enter the war. The British didn't give Germany any explicit answer to the issue and in fact hinted that they would stay out. It's a really complex issue about which numerous historians have written books. I think that one of the best is "The Pity of War" by Ferguson. Great read...

[Tolls]

"The French had a "defence" mentality"

Not really...they had a very aggressive mentality in 1914, involving their much vaunted "elan"...which didn't really work. They were supposed to attack attack attack, except the Germans outflanked them and it all sort of went wrong.
If Germany hadn't gone through Belgium, then there would have been one almighty blood bath between the two sides (assuming Germany invaded)...until they were both knackered and settled down to a "quiet" few years, while Germany sorted out Russia.

Had the Germans not attacked, I expect the French Plan XVII would have been as successful as it was in reality...

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by jsw363


Part of the reason that the war started was because Germany didn't believe that Britain would enter the war. The British didn't give Germany any explicit answer to the issue

The Foreign Minister (Grey IIRC) was on a fishing trip during the critical days, and his underlings were not that competent. There was no direct contact AFAIK on the issue of British entry.

With all "what ifs" we will never really know, there were many variables at play, to single one out is absurd.

[jsw363]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
The Foreign Minister (Grey IIRC) was on a fishing trip during the critical days, and his underlings were not that competent. There was no direct contact AFAIK on the issue of British entry.

Many of Europe's leaders were on vacation as it was the summer when the crisis occurred. However there was much contact between all the nations regarding what kind of position Britain would take in a conflict.

In a letter from Grey to British Ambassador to France, Sir Francis Bertie: "it was the uncertainty with regard to whether we would intervene which was the encouraging element in Berlin, and that, if we would only declare definitely on the side of Russia and France, it would decide the German attitude in favor of peace."

Despite all the contact the British still did not signal their intentions to the other nations. Not the single cause of the war, but a contributing factor. In any event this is OT.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by HisMajestyBOB
Personally, i think the US should not be included (just give units to the Allies)

Absolutely not. England tried for quite a while to get us to enter the war, which only occured because of the Zimmerman Telegram and unrestricted submarine warfare. The USA was certainly not part of the Allies for quite some time, and the diplomatic wooing of the US into the war should be part of the challenge of the scenario if you play as an allied power.

Also, France and Britain should be one civ, so they can cooperate effectively. Finally, a way to simulate the Russian Revoltuion and Russia's withdrawl from the war would be nice (maybe w/ events?)

They didn't cooperate as one civ. Besides, we have 16 civs or whatever... why not use them?
A good way to model the russian revolution would be great, although from what I hear of the Civ3 events text (or lack thereof) it seems pretty unlikely for now...

[johncmcleod]

This would be a good idea. Someone should make this scenario. Belgium should be in it, the completely held off the German army for weeks despite being completely outnumbered by the Germans while the British got the BEF set up in Europe.

[Rasbelin]

I'm looking forward to that, but the scenario utility must first support permanently locating cities. And I might even more likely do it for the Civ II platform, and not Civ III.

[Dan Severn]

Why is everyone afraid to give civs more than 1 UU?

In Civ2, good scenarios often uprooted the tech tree entirely and gave each civ its own unique set.

[Jon Shafer]

I might work on this scenario.. maybe we could pool a bunch of people's efforts who're interested in it and get something going. :)
Right now I'm working on my Pacific Theater scenario, but that shouldn't take more than a couple weeks to complete. After that I wanted to do either a Napoleon or WWI scenario. Anyone interested? :)

[Rasbelin]

I don't think I'm not ready yet, as there's that Civ II scenario contest, and I haven't played Civ III for many months, so I'll have to do some playing first. Perhaps later on...

[WW1 Nut]

Don't bother putting the american's in, they were useless. Well according to first hand reports by General Ludendorff. They came in to late to matter.

I'm with the guy who said why not make more than 1 UU, there are soooo many options there.

And for all those not entirly sic of WW1 useless knoledge, the only reason the German offensive was so unsucessful was because of the reassigning of the troop ratio contrary to what General Von Schlieffen had origionally put them at 10 years earlier when that plan was devised by the German General staff.

I'm not sure how exactly one would make both Russia have the revolution, and Italy join, but most of the other countries could just begin the game on one side or another. It's really not worth the agrivation to make the different countries join at spasific dates.

Oh and IMO, the British comanndo should be Canadian. And Sir Arthur Currie should be a British Leader.

[Constantine]

Sure the Americans came in late, but they certainly weren't useless, and Ludendorff doesn't seem like one who should have the defining opinion on it anyways, though his insight shouldn't be overlooked. And I really don't think anyone should listen to someone who considers history "useless knoledge." (is that how you spell in c-a-n-a-d-i-a?)

[WW1 Nut]

1 - F-U it was a typo, if that's all you can say you have one useless argument.

2 - Ludendorff is harelded as one of the greatest generals of all time, the US sucked, it's a fact, they have the highest Casualty : Kill ratio of all the countries (even the Austro-Hungarians did more) in the short time they were in the war. They had an 8% casualty rate and they were in the war for a little over a year. (and they weren't even in really any of the more heated battles) This was partially due to the fact that, in their ignorance, many of their generals did not listen to the advice of Brittish, French, and other countries that had been in the war for much longer then they had.

3 - Well I'm sorry to say, but at least for me History is almost useless trivia, it's fun to know, I intend to end up teaching it, but frankly, in the hunter-gatherer sence of the term, it is useless. History is good to know, but I think I'd rather have shelter, food, air, etc.

[Constantine]

1-Wasn't Ludendorff the one who modified the Schlieffen plan?

2-By the war's end, America had occupied more land on the western front than the British forces did.

3-High casualties were due to a lack of experience and that the Americans were sent to attacks the best defended areas of the Germany's western front in 1918, and by the way, casualty statistics have no relation to the amount of time a country fights.

4-In the time that America was in the war, it was never unsuccessful in repulsing an attack when on the defensive, and never fell short of attaining its offensive goals (not an easy task against us Germans :) )

5-Check out The Great War Society's AMERICA'S MILITARY CONTRIBUTION TO VICTORY IN THE GREAT WAR at www.worldwar1.com/dbc/salsresp.htm id you're not convinced.

6-My arguments are also organized by number, so take that! Haha! Sorry canada person.

[Jon Shafer]

A Canadian defending Germany and a German defending America... how weird. :hmmm:

The (modified) Von Schlieffen plan would have worked if Kluck hadn't deviated from the plan and headed east instead of enveloping Paris like he was supposd to in the autumn of 1914.

America entering had less of an impact than Russia leaving. It was important, but by 1918 when they entered, things were pretty much getting set already. All of the fresh manpower that America added was a huge boost to the allied cause near the end of the war.

[Constantine]

I'm just defending the importance and ability of the US military, wouldn't catch me defending their politics. :)

[Jon Shafer]

I'm the first to say that the US had great importance in WWII, and not as much as any other Allied power in WWI. ;)

Hitler declaring war on the United States... Tsch... what a moron. :p

[jreza99]

America really only made an impact in its industrial capacity. As it is it took her a year to mobilize and raise a sufficient army. We were unexperienced also going in. If anything, just our presence in numbers helped. As for the Air Service during the first World War, America's suffered a rate of almost 100% casaulties at the hands of the Germans.

[Andrew_Jay]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Canada had a higher casualty rate, some 66 000 dead out of 600 000 or 700 000 soldiers (all out of a population of only about 8 million at that). However, I find interesting especially with the First World War is that there is almost a perverse pride from having a higher casualy figure. That war was not a pretty one, and nothing got done cheaply in terms of lives. Brilliant victories still left as many as 10% killed or wounded (see Vimy Ridge below). I've been considering writing a history paper on this, how since the First World War, people remember defeats and loses much more than victories. Here in my province of Newfoundland the fact that we lost our entire battalion on the first day of the Somme offensive is remembered every July 1st (and there is a lot of friction due to Canada day also being July 1st). Before the First World War, I don't think people would have so readily remembered their defeats. But then again, there were few actual "victories" in the First World War, just battles where the death toll was merely "horrendous", and not "catastrophic".
Also, in the end the US only contributed about as much man power as Canada, though in a shorter period of time. Their contribution was probably more by the fact that they raised morale after the allies lost Russia, and allowed the allies to have that little extra puch to finally convince the Germans and Ausro-Hungarians that they were going to lose.

Anyway, how about Canadian troops being a British UU, seriously. We fough amazingly at Vimy Ridge - a brilliant attack that left only 3 658 dead and 7004 wouldned which is actually good in First World War terms. Canada used only 100 000 men, while the last time the British and French tried to take the ridge they LOST 150 000 men. After that (this is true) the British had to be extra careful that the Germans did not know where they were placing their Canadian units. If a Canadian Division took up positions in a particular stretch of the front, is was almost certain that a major attack would be launched from there in a matter of days. Knowing where the Canadians were was actually a very reliable way to know when and where an attack would occur.
So anyway, perhaps Canadian Infantry (I don't know, give them a kilt or something) could have really good attack and defense values, but only be built or drafed in Canada; probably give Canada a couple of cities like Toronto, Ottawa & Montreal on the far left of the map, maybe you could even have to deal with extra unrest in French Montreal.

Also, one more idea that I was working on for my own First World War Scenario was airplanes. I wanted to give planes the ability to scout and intercect only, and let Zeppelins bomb. This would represent that the air war came from scouting with planes, then stopping the enemy from scouting till you eventually had planes shooting each other down for little strategic gain. It would work really well if planes could be intercepted when scouting and you gave them equl attack and defense (i.e. ADM: 4-4-0), This way you could use your planes to scout over an enemy city and draw up their fighters for a dog fight, which would be even.

Anyway, those are my ideas I've been looking forward to a First World War scenario since I saw how well the regular Infantry represented the troops of the time.

[erikmistal]

That's right. I went to vimy ridge in france, and they were all saying how much they owe to canada.

there are war cemeteries all over the place dedicated exclusively to canadian soldiers

[GePap]

When thinking about this type of scenerio, the map size should also play a role as well as when one begins. Also, no civ should be relegious, to avoid cheap and simple government switching.

Personally, having given it independent thought to this type of scenerio have come up with the following list

Initinial Allies:
1.Great Britain and empire:each civ should have an own units, like the WWI scenerio of Civ2. Possible UU's, besides British infantry: ANZAC, Canadians, swopwith camel, Mark IV tanks.
2. France and empire: Possible UU's besides French inf., F-17, Neuports, African Troops
3. Russian Empire: Cossacks, conscripts.
4. Minor allies- This would include Serbia, montenegro and Belgium. We should remeber that any civs which might die two quickly would never be fun to play. Each type of troop (belgian army, Serbian army) could be built only if one had access to a certain resource, and we made those resources national- imagine creating a resource caled (S) for serbia- only cities connected to it could build Serbian troops- and it would be placed in the map in Serbia only. This type of shortchut would not be needed for other, bigger civs, since one assumes they will be around long enough to make their own troops.

Later allies:(if they choose to join)
5.Italy: mountain troops
6.Rumania: Rumanian troops
7. Amercians: AEF
8. Minor allies: The greeks themselves barely fought in WWI, they mainly served as a staging area for Anglo-french troops in Salonika. So they, the Portugese,a nd other late commers would be bunched in this group.

Central Powers:
9.Germany: German army, albatros, Fokkers, stromtroops
10. Austria-Hunagry: all sort of national troops
11. Ottoman Empire: Turkish troops, so forth
12. Bulgaria: Bulgerian troops, so forth.

Neutrals: (or not)
13. Sweden
14. Spain
15. Minor Neutrals: Denmark, Switzerland, Netherlands, Norway- all those countries of little power and influence.
16. OPen space- perhaps rebels, such as Arab rebels vs. Turks, or Irish rebels vs. Great Britain. so forth.

[WW1 Nut]

*note* wrote this awhile back, haven't bothered to post yet.

Alright you convinced me, the US did have a role in ww1 (oh and btw almost all air forces had a 100% casualty rate, in WW2 the avarage life expectancy for a pilot, no matter the country was a couple of days.) But I hold true that the value of the american military was mostly moral based. When they entered the war the Germans almost pissed themselves cause they knew that if the american industrial power was used with lets say any competance (which it really wasen't until WW2) it would stick it to just about anybody, also this helped to alliviate the pressure from the French whose soldiers were rioting.

Thus I propose that a WW1 scenerio would use a map of the eastern world, I'm sorry to all the Canadians who believe that we deserve our own country in WW1 but we really didn't, we we're British, even in Vimy we had Sir Douglas Haig commanding Sir Arthur Currie (the Canadian) who had only partial control over the troops with Sir Julian Byng (notice the large amount of Sir's) So therefore Canada would be set up as a small # of British UUs, while they would probably have others.

The Americans would fall under a the catagory of a great wonder. yes I said wonder. earlier on in the war it was touch and go as to what side they were going to side with, while everyone knew that they'd choose a side as soon as they didn't have to risk anything. They would reduce war wearieness and maybe boost the shield count.

And yes we had a higher casualty figure, just about everyone but the japaneese did. (Japan lost 300 soldiers) But what I was saying was that most countries actually got into the fighting, want proof look up the 2nd and 3rd battles of Ypres, the Somme (especially the Newfoundland Regement), there are Canadian victories but look at Verdun that's where france got their 73.3% casualty rate geez.

so yeah I'd say the sides would be:
Brittish Empire (I'd give them Belgium, it'd just make things easier)
France
Germany
Austria-Hungary
Russia + Serbia
Italy + Greece + Montenegro + Romania + Portiugal
Ottoman Empire + Bulgaria

[WW1 Nut]

oh yeah anyone else hear that Tolkien was at the Somme?

yeah when you first hear it it's weird, but it kinda makes sence.

[Andrew_Jay]

Yeah I knew that, he lost all of his friends from school there (or at least during the course of the War). I don't think he was in the War for a long time, he got sick after a little while. However, he was already working on his stories and poetry about Middle-Earth at the time.