Reply With QuoteI have very vague memories of solar plants increasing the threshold at which Global Warming takes place at. Basically, if several cities have Solar Plants, more pollution tiles are required to make global warming happen...
Ok, so hard, but not impossible. That's very good news. Cheers, Stephan!
This file needs global warming removed:
I have very vague memories of solar plants increasing the threshold at which Global Warming takes place at. Basically, if several cities have Solar Plants, more pollution tiles are required to make global warming happen...
El bumpo.
Just waiting for units from Fairline and it's all done.
Seeing that you're done with the Mongols, maybe you could help me wrap this already?Originally posted by fairline
Oops, I had completely forgotten. Or maybe a month is a long time in civ...
I'm making Mongols and Chinese at the moment, but I can have a go, er, within a monthKeep pestering me to make sure I do!
When this scenario is ready, I will post a news item up for it!
Fairline is on the case, gentlemen, and the graphics he has provided me with this far is absolutely spectacular. He decided to make a complete make over. Some of his best yet! So stay tuned for the release, which is not far away!
But in the mean time, please playtest the game further if you have the time. I would be much obliged.
Last edited by Eivind IV; May 4, 2006 at 08:10.
This is good news!
I shall prepare a news item...Eivind, if you want to PM me
an appropriate text matter for the news report, please do!
Is there a more recent version than beta v1.0?Originally posted by Eivind IV
But in the mean time, please playtest the game further if you have the time. I would be much obliged.
There is one with some very minor updates on my computer, but they are so minor that you can play this one in until the alpha version. The biggest difference is that Monty is removed as a seperate unit for the Allies. In this version he usually dies early on anyway, so this one is perfectly play-test-able.
bumpity
anti steam and proud of it
CDO ....its OCD in alpha order like it should be
Gee, that's quite a bump. 2 years since I started this scenario now...
As far as I can remember, Fairline sent me all the units I requested last summer. He even took it upon himself to convert it to TOT, with all the amazing gfx that would imply. You've probably seen his units posted in the showcase thread already - absolutely amazing! I thank him for this, but only as long as he converts those wonderful units to the MGE version (), which will be the main version. I will not take advantage of all the extra features TOT can offer, simply because I've lost my TOT-CD.
What remains, actually, is so little I have no good excuse for not having released it already. I got stuck, I can remember, when I needed to find out what units to replace the monty and the irish unit with. Fairline suggest a highlander unit, but I didn't find out when and where and in which outfit they fought. Everything else in this scen is based on real life order of battle's, and it would be nice to have that for them as wel. But still that leaves for one more unit...Any idea anyone?
Some ideas:
British 5.5in Howitzer
German 15-cm Feldhaubitze
German 10.5-cm Feldhaubitze
British 50th Northumbrian Infantry Division (The Tyne and Tees (TT), tough working class geordies)
British 51st Highland Infantry Division (The 'Highway Decorators, they gained this title due to their fondness of leaving their HD emblem posted at the side of the road so anyone following up knew that the Scots 'woz ere'!)
If you need some unit shields for these Infantry divisions then let me know and I will have a bash!
I have had a look at the beta 1.0, if you need any other input to finish this one off then just ask. Us MGE types have got to stick together! Will try and do a proper playtest when I get a mo!
Feedback will be very much apreciated.
mmm, thought I'd done that already; I'll have a look at converting them. My e-mail account is t1ts-up atm, so I may have to post here if that's OK.Originally posted by Eivind IV
Gee, that's quite a bump. 2 years since I started this scenario now...
As far as I can remember, Fairline sent me all the units I requested last summer. He even took it upon himself to convert it to TOT, with all the amazing gfx that would imply. You've probably seen his units posted in the showcase thread already - absolutely amazing! I thank him for this, but only as long as he converts those wonderful units to the MGE version (
The 51st (Highland) Division which fought in the Alemain battles and later on in Normandy. They developed into something of an elite formation.What remains, actually, is so little I have no good excuse for not having released it already. I got stuck, I can remember, when I needed to find out what units to replace the monty and the irish unit with. Fairline suggest a highlander unit, but I didn't find out when and where and in which outfit they fought. Everything else in this scen is based on real life order of battle's, and it would be nice to have that for them as wel. But still that leaves for one more unit...Any idea anyone?
For everyone's information, I have resumed work on this scenario.
Good job! I will take another look at the beta.
EDIT:
My first observation would be the lack of a German artillery unit. 105 and 150mm Artillery should be included!
Last edited by McMonkey; September 30, 2007 at 07:27.
Sweet!
It will be available in TOT as well, so the more playtesters the better!
Definitely include a towed German arty unit (you don't need both) - lose the Irish unit which is anachronisticOriginally posted by McMonkey
Good job! I will take another look at the beta.
EDIT:
My first observation would be the lack of a German artillery unit. 105 and 150mm Artillery should be included!
Thanks. Maybe a good idea. The Irish currently only made 3 units altogether, which is an utter show of disrespect to people who strruggle with the already limited unit space!
Last edited by Eivind IV; October 1, 2007 at 14:21.
I have the TOT version ready but no TOT to open it. I know it works in MGE, but can I please send the TOT to someone who can just check everything is ok before I release it? And possibly post a screenshot to show what I'm missing out on?
Eivind, I'll e-mail you after work
Gareth?
Took a look at this one, Eivind. Got some comments. Started to play it, looked it over, but stopped. My view is that some major problems need to be resolved first. Here are some observations;
1.) You've got the Germans in the Communist government. This creates a resource-gathering pattern in which your cities will grow into regular cyrenaican metropoli in no time. You can play with the governments and terrain values to produce cities that don't grow. They didn't during this 2 year campaign.
1a.) Is this scenario really about city growth and development? If not, get rid of most of them. Someone mentioned making the smaller villages airfields instead. Excellent idea, especially with the right graphix.
1b.) Logistics was the crux of this campaign. Bringing depleted units back up to strength was a critical limiting factor. Because cities do this better than ordinary terrain, they should be rare and valuable--port cities, like Benghazi and Tobruk. This works well especially if there are no barracks in the scen.
2.) The Gazala defence line is there at the start of the game?
3.) Most of the wonders seem to be happiness wonders. Was there any real unrest behind the lines? Why make this a factor at all? You can set the happiness so that unrest really isn't a problem.
4.) Does the nile delta have to be included on the map? It's generally assumed that if the Alamein line hadn't held, the delta would have fallen. All the extra map space just plays havoc with trying to get your AI to move units where you'd like them to be.
4a.) You must have the correct patch for the moveunit command to work correctly. If you don't, it doesn't.
5.) You include the delta, but leave off Tripoli and Malta? The latter were entirely relevant to the campaign. The former was simply the objective.
6.) Giving the Brits the pyramids is nonsensical. Did the population in this particular collection of beni-hilal huts and tents in Cyrenaica (Agedabia, Msus, et al) rise sharply during the 2 year campaign? I don't know for sure, but I'd bet a million dollars that it didn't.
7.) Here is a strange problem--turn 1, Germans capture agedabia, and when I check the city's build, it's building a crusader. Inaccurate though it might well be, I could've left it like that and allowed the city to build them. For the Germans.
8.) The map shoud be narrower in its "height" dimension. This would help the AI to keep units where they might actually be needed. For example, all that's really needed of the Quattara depression is the very edge. This edge should be the very bottom row of the Civ2 map and have a super-high movement penalty. 8 or something, and make the defense bonus negative. That will keep people out of it.
8a.) For the purposes of THIS game, making the coast road MOSTLY railroads isn't unreasonable or unbalanced. As in the actual campaign, stopping traffic up and down that road was the primary element of tactics. Anything OFF the coast road was a reaction to that. This idea actually works very well, if you give armored vehicles a low movement value, say, 4 or 5, but allow them the alpine effect. Give wheeled vehicles a higher movement, but no off-road bonus. If the off-road terrains cost 3 and 4 move points, this ties the wheeled traffic to the road and allows SOME movement offroad by the tracked elements. And this neatly mimics the dilemma faced by the commanders. This would also help to keep the AI units where they need to be.
8b.) Actual civ2 roads should be pretty sparse, represent desert tracks, and give the least possible bonus in movement.
8c.) This is also a game in which a larger map that encompasses the same general area; the northern, coastal edge of cyrenaica, tripolitania, and malta, might be advisable. The campaign consisted of rapid sweeps through broad, but undefendable territory, punctuated by stalemates at natural defensive bottlenecks (in which the escarpments and ports usually figured.)
8d.) Mersa Matruh was the British railhead. Pretty important. Maybe a wonder there? a banned improvement?
9.) Shrubs???
10.) Most of the terrain is very pretty, but there are too many types. This campaign wasn't about different terrains. I can think of only 4 necessary types; Coastal, plateau, "rough," and ESCARPMENT. If you want to get really detailed, a salt marsh to depict the forementioned depression and the swampy ground south of el agaila.
10a.) Most of this ground, with the exception of the escarpments, was flat. Rocky and sandy. but flat. Take a look at a topographic map of the area.
11.) I like the idea of anti-tank ditches, but only as transformed terrain. Great alternative use for the Terrain2 file. Or, alternately, just make fortresses anti-tank ditches. The graphix you've got work well either way.
12.) The unit graphix are spectacular.
13.) You really should start the thing with the spring '40 rout of the the Italians by the desert rats. Great fun.
14.) Because there are only two sides, pretty easy to create separate event files for each civ to be played solo, with another event file for a "chess match."
15.) I'm really curious to see how your tech system works. Seems like I tried something similar with unhappy results.
16.) Your events file seems to be primarily the generation of reinforcements. This is admirable. We all like historical accuracy. I don't think it will work with the AI running things though. As in point 14, you'd be better, from a gameplay standpoint, if you random-generated lots of Brit units for a solo German player, and did something similar with the Axis units for a solo Commonwealth player. (Keeping to the historical OOB is fine for human players--we love that kinda stuff.)
17.) I DO understand that this is not a finished thing. lol.
Hope this helps.
Last edited by Exile; October 22, 2007 at 08:27.
Lost in America.
"a freaking mastermind." --Stefu
"or a very good liar." --Stefu
"Jesus" avatars created by Mercator and Laszlo.
Thanks for taking the time!Originally posted by Exile
Took a look at this one, Eivind. Got some comments. Started to play it, looked it over, but stopped. My view is that some major problems need to be resolved first. Here are some observations;
I got both civs in the communism government. I thought only Republic and Democracy grew faster under we love the king. As far I thought, all communism did was to produce more tithes. Please enlighten me otherwise.Originally posted by Exile
1.) You've got the Germans in the Communist government. This creates a resource-gathering pattern in which your cities will grow into regular cyrenaican metropoli in no time. You can play with the governments and terrain values to produce cities that don't grow. They didn't during this 2 year campaign.
I thought of this option once it was proposed, but ruled against it. No, this scenario is not about city growth, but in order to win you need not only anhilate the enemy, but hold a certain amount of objectives (not the built in civ objective thing), and in order for the AI to be agressive towards you, you need to have cities for them to run against.Originally posted by Exile
1a.) Is this scenario really about city growth and development? If not, get rid of most of them. Someone mentioned making the smaller villages airfields instead. Excellent idea, especially with the right graphix.
I could however remove cities such as the siwa oasis and jarabub.
As of now there are only barracks in the major cities. I may take you up on removing the possebility to build barracks elsewere.Originally posted by Exile
1b.) Logistics was the crux of this campaign. Bringing depleted units back up to strength was a critical limiting factor. Because cities do this better than ordinary terrain, they should be rare and valuable--port cities, like Benghazi and Tobruk. This works well especially if there are no barracks in the scen.
Yes.Originally posted by Exile
2.) The Gazala defence line is there at the start of the game?
Not as far as I know. I have simply changed the text to be "Low morale in X. OfficersOriginally posted by Exile
3.) Most of the wonders seem to be happiness wonders. Was there any real unrest behind the lines? Why make this a factor at all? You can set the happiness so that unrest really isn't a problem.
request tighter dicipline!"
I see your point though. This factor could very well be abstracted.
Did you play the scenario at all?Originally posted by Exile
4.) Does the nile delta have to be included on the map? It's generally assumed that if the Alamein line hadn't held, the delta would have fallen. All the extra map space just plays havoc with trying to get your AI to move units where you'd like them to be.
From Cairo to Alexandria there is an ocean wall that prohibits the allies to go onto the delta. They are forced to go westwards by events as well.
Oh, I didn't know that. Which one is that? It works with my version at least.Originally posted by Exile
4a.) You must have the correct patch for the moveunit command to work correctly. If you don't, it doesn't.
This is supposed to only be playable the axis and there are no ships in this scenario. The only focus is on the campaign on ground from Rommel's first offensive from El Agheila. And again, the delta doesn't play any role at all, save estetics.Originally posted by Exile
5.) You include the delta, but leave off Tripoli and Malta? The latter were entirely relevant to the campaign. The former was simply the objective.
I only did this as the cities will go a lot from one owner to another, reducing the city size. Not everything need to make sense real life wise. Sometimes functionality has to be prioritised.Originally posted by Exile
6.) Giving the Brits the pyramids is nonsensical. Did the population in this particular collection of beni-hilal huts and tents in Cyrenaica (Agedabia, Msus, et al) rise sharply during the 2 year campaign? I don't know for sure, but I'd bet a million dollars that it didn't.
That is indeed weird and this is the first time it has been reported. You did capture the city yourself and the city was building crusaders once you entered the city screen?Originally posted by Exile
7.) Here is a strange problem--turn 1, Germans capture agedabia, and when I check the city's build, it's building a crusader. Inaccurate though it might well be, I could've left it like that and allowed the city to build them. For the Germans.
Heh, it's a bit late in the process to change the map, I'm afraid. Playtesting has also shown that the AI will follow the main roads, and hencly it would not only be unwise to go southwards, but there's really no practical need to cut the map. The Qattara "ocean" also prohibits you from going around it.Originally posted by Exile
8.) The map shoud be narrower in its "height" dimension. This would help the AI to keep units where they might actually be needed. For example, all that's really needed of the Quattara depression is the very edge. This edge should be the very bottom row of the Civ2 map and have a super-high movement penalty. 8 or something, and make the defense bonus negative. That will keep people out of it.
I've tested many varieties of unit movement and road system, and this was the one that suited my ideas the best. You also have to keep in mind that turns are monthly.Originally posted by Exile
8a.) For the purposes of THIS game, making the coast road MOSTLY railroads isn't unreasonable or unbalanced. As in the actual campaign, stopping traffic up and down that road was the primary element of tactics. Anything OFF the coast road was a reaction to that. This idea actually works very well, if you give armored vehicles a low movement value, say, 4 or 5, but allow them the alpine effect. Give wheeled vehicles a higher movement, but no off-road bonus. If the off-road terrains cost 3 and 4 move points, this ties the wheeled traffic to the road and allows SOME movement offroad by the tracked elements. And this neatly mimics the dilemma faced by the commanders. This would also help to keep the AI units where they need to be.
8b.) Actual civ2 roads should be pretty sparse, represent desert tracks, and give the least possible bonus in movement.
Again, a bit late in the progess to change the map. And even then I actually prefer the map as it is. But I'm sure it would be sweet to have two seperate scenarios, one for the western desert campaign and one for the eastern. Maybe in the future!Originally posted by Exile
8c.) This is also a game in which a larger map that encompasses the same general area; the northern, coastal edge of cyrenaica, tripolitania, and malta, might be advisable. The campaign consisted of rapid sweeps through broad, but undefendable territory, punctuated by stalemates at natural defensive bottlenecks (in which the escarpments and ports usually figured.)
Thanks, will do.Originally posted by Exile
8d.) Mersa Matruh was the British railhead. Pretty important. Maybe a wonder there? a banned improvement?
Heh, lack of better ideas for terrain. I had already used all the others, and still I wouldn't know what else to use it for. And call me unmanly, but I like the green contrast on the desert terrain!Originally posted by Exile
9.) Shrubs???
Although what you say would be neat, El Agheila isn't where the battles are fought. If you have any other such special terrain idea, I'm all ears.Originally posted by Exile
10.) Most of the terrain is very pretty, but there are too many types. This campaign wasn't about different terrains. I can think of only 4 necessary types; Coastal, plateau, "rough," and ESCARPMENT. If you want to get really detailed, a salt marsh to depict the forementioned depression and the swampy ground south of el agaila.
What do you mean? Do you mean the units should be able to change terrain? If so, that would create more problems than it solves.Originally posted by Exile
11.) I like the idea of anti-tank ditches, but only as transformed terrain. Great alternative use for the Terrain2 file. Or, alternately, just make fortresses anti-tank ditches. The graphix you've got work well either way.
I quite agree. Wait till you see the units that I have in the alpha version, they're even better. Fairline has outdone himself this time!Originally posted by Exile
12.) The unit graphix are spectacular.
Heh, yeah, that would be fun.Originally posted by Exile
13.) You really should start the thing with the spring '40 rout of the the Italians by the desert rats. Great fun.
That was my initial idea. But once I tried to mod the scenario to also be fought from the desert rats' perspective, I couldn't get the Axis AI to react on the moveto event. Any ideas why not (exept for wrong version, which obviously isn't my problem)?Originally posted by Exile
14.) Because there are only two sides, pretty easy to create separate event files for each civ to be played solo, with another event file for a "chess match."
It's not really a tech tree 'system' per se. I flattened out the tech tree, and made each unit connected to a tech, so that they are visable in the civiliopedia, as they are all non buildable.Originally posted by Exile
15.) I'm really curious to see how your tech system works. Seems like I tried something similar with unhappy results.
You should playtest it before saying this. Actually the real oob creates more than enough foes for you to fight. I've only played it a couple of times, but I failed in reaching Alexandria.Originally posted by Exile
16.) Your events file seems to be primarily the generation of reinforcements. This is admirable. We all like historical accuracy. I don't think it will work with the AI running things though. As in point 14, you'd be better, from a gameplay standpoint, if you random-generated lots of Brit units for a solo German player, and did something similar with the Axis units for a solo Commonwealth player. (Keeping to the historical OOB is fine for human players--we love that kinda stuff.)
By no means. This scenario I have revisited and abondened, on and off for 6 years now, althought the bulk of the work has been done the last 2 years (at slow progress of course). I'm pretty fed up with all the time consumed on scenario designing in general, so I honestly doubt I will ever truly finnish this, or make any new scenarios. Possibly my last one.Originally posted by Exile
17.) I DO understand that this is not a finished thing. lol.
Certainly does, Phenix. I appreciate the time you took looking at it. You gave me some fine pointers on what to improve. Sorry that I am unwilling (or too stupid to understand my own good) in implenting all your proposals.Originally posted by Exile Hope this helps.
Have a good day!
Last edited by Eivind IV; October 23, 2007 at 08:00.
No follow up, Phenix?
And Gareth, did you get to test if the scenario I sent by email works in TOT? I don't know how many events you can stack in one event file in TOT (i stacked 3 into 1), so I'm most interested in just knowing if it opens without any problem.
I'll have a look Eivind.
First of all, superb scenario! I can't believe how much time you put into this and how historically accurate it is! Next...
:Yes!I'd like to hear if anyone actually managed to reach Alexandria
Notes
1) You really have to get rid of pollution and global warming. Near the end of my game global warming turned the road from Cairo into anti-tank ditch terrain.
2) The Bersaglieri are super commandoes, not to mention scouts. Since most Brit cities have those measly garrison units, my Bersaglieri were running around conquering a city per turn for a while. (And I promptly sold all improvements to fund rush-buying barracks.) I don't think you intended that.
3) Like I said above, all unnecessary improvements (aqueducts and coliseums) I promptly auctioned off.
4) Tobruk, to me, seemed too easy. I popped the Gazala Line in the weak spot with an anti-tank ditch and mine, and overran Gazala. (I popped the line with a Pzkw IV.) A bersaglieri easily dodges the defense line and takes Bir Hakeim. An HE 111 pops into Tobruk by eliminating ONE bunker on the coast, avoiding all the nasty little forts in the middle. Conclusion: 1 Pzkw IV pops a hole in Gazala by eliminating ONE mine (not on barbed wire, mind you) and ONE BUNKER is destroyed to get to Tobruk. (Not a bunker and a fortress, just ONE BUNKER) Did you intend this?
Overall strategy as follows-
1) Conquer Agedabia and Beda Fomm, hold tight one turn to react to Msus garrison
2) Obliterate Msus garrison plus any New Zealand troops that pop up
3) Assign 2 Pzkw IIs and Italian infantry to mop up Cyrene, detour 2 Pzkw IIIs, 2 Italian armored cars, and 2 Pzkw IIs to go straight across southern desert to El Alamein
4) Rest of troops rush to Tobruk and steamroll Tmime
4) Take Tobruk and Sid Rezegh blitzkrieg style, dig in these two cities to repulse multiple waves of troops.
5) Bersaglieri act as raiders, conquering Brit cities.
6) detachment sent toward El Alamein reaches target by staying in desert, taking no roads while other units defend Tobruk/Sid Rezegh and Bersaglieri raid
7) El Alamein taken, Alexandria taken in max of 2 turns by detachment
And wonder of wonders thing went exactly according to this plan! I conquered El Alamein and Alexandria on the last turn before the scenario ended.
Again, excellent scenario! Although I just might be biased since I love reading about Rommel's campaigns and tank warfare.
P.S. I forgot to mention one other bug. In almost all the Brit cities I captured there was a Brit tank being built. I could have created an army of German Crusaders! Didn't one of the other playtesters run into this bug as well?
This because the British might not have an available defence (role 1) unit in their build list.
Also, if the musketeer or knight slot are being used for land units, this can cause trouble.
See this link for details!
http://sleague.apolyton.net/Guides/sldt_useunits.shtml
...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks