New Dictator WW2 scenario...When should it start?

[curtsibling]

Cheers, Harry...!

I'll check it out...

[Tigey]

Originally posted by Sarsstock
As large as the Canadian contribution to the war effort was, as outlined by Bill earlier, my main reason for the inclusion of the canadian civ was mostly to prevent Britain from becoming too massive a powerhouse with industrial centers and bases on almost every corner of the map.

I realize at the same time that to some this represents a non-historical break between the Commonwealth and the Dominion. In my limited experience with scenario making, sadly with a non perfect engine like that of ToT you have to make trade offs like that to best mimic historical world powers.

I fully trust Curt's judgment on his most respected scenario topic .

I don't want to get into the debate over Canada, but you do raise a valid point here, one which often kind of "spoils" otherwise fantastic scenarios.

That is that in Civ2 terms, every city technically has the chance to grow and develop fully. There's no real way to stop development, and eventually you could get a size 21 Fiji or Honolulu city, compared to your size 15 Berlin or New York. I'm completely sozzled at the minute (hey, it's Friday night), and so haven't articulated my point very well, but I think most people on here are experienced enough to know what I'm getting at.

I just had a thought about it though (Miss Sambuca is great for halping lateral thinking). How about denying the ability to build aquaducts and/or Sewer Systems (by making it's prereq a tech the BRitish can't get to) to the British (or any other civ with far flung outposts that you want to stay as outposts, not metropoli)? Sure, size 8 is still big, but the engine lets you take it down to 4 if you wanted. All European British cities, and ones you don't mind growing, would start with the improvements in place, but the British civ couldn't build any more. It has the benefit of allowing the metropolitan Brit cities to grow, but preventing growth in cities you don't want to become grow (like ones in Africa and Canada), and could also free up a valuable civ slot, something we'd all like o do.


Worth a thought at least...

*Collapses*

[Timor_Leste]

Originally posted by BillyBud
Germany had a large quantity of uranium oxide by 1945, but NO specific nuclear bomb.

This book (in German) claims they tested a series of dirty bombs, but that none of the nuclear devices could be delivered by aircraft.

[Palaiologos]

I say that Brits(canadians as well) and Yanks are put in as a single civ. What would be the point of having the yanks as a seperate civ?

Divide the Axis into seperate civs instead; Germans, Italians, Finns so each one is in turn is knocked out of the war and abandons the German player's war effort.

Have the Spanish and Turks as seperate civs in or alternatively have the Bulgarians and Hungarians in.

[jim panse]

@ Curt: I hope this helped at least a bit ...

Are we talking about global or European scale?

[Exile]

In Age of Imperialism, the small islands STAY small.

I did this by using CivCity to deny "coastal" and to deny "build ships." Removed the checkmark, and the cities on antigua, barbados, etc. never get very large. The exploding population problem is addressed by not having harbors, and the mega-production by not having an offshore platform. It's easy to accomplish.

[curtsibling]

@Jim:
You are invaluable as ever, sir!
And this effort looks to be a Euro-based scenario...

@Exile:
Indeed, with the lack of harbours, the base terrain will
not allow the city to grow very large. There are quite a
few ways to put a cap on city sizes...
....Starting with the cosmic part of the rules file!

I am preaching to the bishop here, you know the tricks!

[BillyBud]

Originally posted by fairline




This is just a friendly debate - nobody is taking offense I hope.

heheh

Cool

[BillyBud]

Originally posted by Dr Kellogg

My main subject is early modern history but my knowledge about WW2 are sufficient. I suppose so.
But take a look at your post about Canada's contribution to WW2 and check which of these points can actually be converted in a useful way.

Why should the Canadian civ build thousands of tanks if these units are not meant to be used by them on the European battlefields? Not to mention that any Canadian ground unit in Europe would simply block terrain tiles for other Allied civs...
How would you emulate that largest air pilot training program in history or that Canada had its own generals within the British command structure?
There were millions of soldiers fighting in Europe and you have a unit limit of 255 to represent them all. It wouldn't be much fun for the Canadian civ to fight with only a handful of units in Europe. One the other hand, it wouldn't be plausible to see lots of Canadians liberating Europe.

Naval battles are fine but it is hard to simulate that in Civ2 even if you focus solely on that and ignore the action that took place on the mainland like Case did in his Cruel Sea scenario.

This post is not about downplaying Canadas WW2 veterans or something. Civ2 is a 10yrs old computer game with very limited possibilities and this are my two cents.

As I understand it this scenario will be playable as the Axis only, so any discussion about playing as Canada is moot.

However, based on your statements, why play as any civ in Civ2, since all nations will have some limitations.

I don't want to continue this debate about Canada's role or about if it would be playable or not.

Basically, if a scenario is being developed where Canada can be played, then no doubt the scenario maker will develop the scenario at a level where it can be fun.

In addition to being an industrial powerhouse, Canada fought in all theatres of war, on land, the sea and in the air, where it fought in the Battle of Britain, in the Strategic Bombing Campaign, in North Africa, in Sicily and Italy, France, Belgium and Holland, as well as in the Atlantic (on convoy runs and against U-boats) and on Murmansk Lend-Lease convoy runs....

After Dunkirk in 1940, Canada had the ONLY fully equipped division in Britain at the time, and it was expected to play a major role in the defense of the island had Germany invaded it at the time....

It ended WW2 as the fourth largest military power in the world after the USA, USSR and Britain....

If this isn't enough game variety in playing a civ, then perhaps there is no hope....

[BillyBud]

Originally posted by Dr Kellogg
Ok, let me rephrase that.
Civ2 has been designed to simulate history on a large scale leaving out excessive and fussy micromanagement in favour of ballance, user friendliness and the amazing possibilities to create thousands of different scenarios.
Therefore, the possibilities to simulate more complex connexions between military, politics and private industry as well as multi- and international cooperation in the range of politics and military are limited which is no insurmountable obstacle though.

I don't know of a single game that can simulate what you have described above. If there was a game that covered all of this, it would probably be just plain boring...

One reason why I continue to play Civ 2 is that it does achieve in an abstract, semi-realistic, and enjoyable way, many of the decisions that did face leaders of nations: economic growth, military production, keeping your populace happy, building improvements, exploration, city building, conquest, diplomacy, etc, etc.....

Add to this the talents of some brilliant scenario designers and artists, and we have had hundreds of scenarios that cover almost every era of history, fantasy and sci-fi....

I know of no other game that has achieved the complexity of civ2 while at the same time keeping it simple and fun....

[curtsibling]

Bravo, BillyBud!

While we can never fully achieve that operational complexity
we seek in war-gaming with Civ2, we can get something that
is a dame enjoyable experience from the engine!

OK, at the time of writing, what I am thinking of is a WW2
scenario, set on a Euro map, with Axis powers of Germany,
Finland, Italy and Vichy France. With the United States, the
Soviet Union and the British Allied powers.

The game will not have to be played as Germany,
but will be geared around their ongoing struggle and
eventual defeat... (although the player may change that!)

[Dr Kellogg]

Well, I don't like that kind of thread jacking but once again: I don't want to bash Canada's war effort or Civ2. Maybe it is my lack of skill in English.

But let me ask you some questions and you may recognise what I want to say.

Why do so many scenario designers forbear from adding a separate Italian civ? The Italians fought in Greece, Russia, Libya, Egypt, Ehtiopia and Italy And I rarely see one of their famous Semoventi.
What about Romania? Its soldiers died on the battlefields in Stalingrad, didn't they?
Why is Finland part of the fascist Axis in most scenarios?

[curtsibling]

I would be including Italy in this scenario...Perhaps Rumania too, if the US/UK gets combined.

[Exile]

Actually . . . .

Rumania's soldiers did not fight at Stalingrad.

They ran away just about as fast as they possibly could. German pilots claimed that they came upon masses of Rumanian infrantry in full flight. After several minutes flying time, the pilot finally spotted Russian troops--miles behind the fleeing Rumanians.

Take a look at the book "Panzer Battles" by Von Mellinthin.

[techumseh]

While it may be an open question as to how well Rumanian troops fought in the Stalingrad campaign, there is no doubt they fought and died in large numbers. The German 6th Army was drawn into the street fighting inside Stalingrad, leaving it's flanks covered by 2 Rumanian and 1 Italian army. The Soviets blasted through these forces to surround the 6th German army in the city.