NEW - WWII Europa Scenario released!

[Cyrion]

Interesting suggestions, Kobi!

[Von Bert]

Well.. this last idea of para-bombers is pretty fine..
i prefer the second option ( as the 1st one maybe can let the para-bomber still "move"..if they are not destroyed )

"para-ship-bomber", they ll not move anymore once dropped .. and will block the resources of towns.. bringing this to extreme can have devasting effects.. (loss of population, production , money ..)

sounds good !

[McMonkey]

@Boco
Been offline for a few days due to another PC crash. I downloaded the Europa file to check it was OK and had no problems so I don't know what problem he was having. Also I have had no other comments about problems so I am not too concerned either. I will check back to CFC when my internet is up and running again.

@STRATEGIC BOMBERS
Nice ides! I am sure there is potential in this. I will test it when I start the ToT version of Europa but keep the ideas coming as I am keeping notes!

[AGRICOLA]

Re: Trans-Atlantic convoys

IMO, the only way that you are going to make such convoys vital to the Allies is by adopting the approach that Capt Nemo uses in in Red Front. Make freights unbuildable, use events to spawn them in the U.S., and forbid trans-Atlantic airlifts.

As I see it, the only problem with this is going to be to achieve the right balance between the amount of income from such freights and the cash needs of the Allies.

Colwyn, in his redux of Red Front, spawned ground units rather than freights in the U.S.. In my opinion this is an inferior approach because it takes into account none of the most important Allied contributions to the Soviet war effort . . . . aircraft, trucks and war materiel. Besides, the tanks that were sent were inferior to both German and Soviet models.

[McMonkey]

I agree that events only trade units is the way to go. I am not much of a trader. I always intend to do so but there is aways some military unit that seems more vital, regardless of the fact that I could buy several units with the profits from a good trade route!

I know other players will trade like theres no tommorow to speed up development and increase their treasuries. This seems fine in some scenarios but to me would be out of place in a WWII game.

Rehousing commodities seems acceptable. Airlifts could be eliminated by keeping back airbases until after the battle of the Atlantic. This would also force players to 'blood' their pilots in action!

Once the battle of the Atlantic was over I would allow the Allies to build banks etc... Will need to think work out how to make this all happen though!

Arctic convoys may be worthwhile if I extend the map north to allow Murmansk. This would be at the cost of the British Empire city at the bottom of the Red Sea. Not sure if that would spare enough space to build the whole of Norway though!?!

[AGRICOLA]

I know other players will trade like theres no tommorow to speed up development and increase their treasuries.

Guilty as charged.

I have always believed that Civ2 is fundamentally a game of economics, as in "Give me enough money and I'll beat the cr*p out of anybody.".

Hmmm. Maybe I should add that bon mot to my sig.

[techumseh]

Your sig already leaves little doubt where you stand.

[curtsibling]

Money is the key to success!

I found that out by following AGRICOLA's doctrine in my Dictator playtest this week...

I gave the poor Allies one helluva beating!

[McMonkey]

Don't get me wrong. I am certainly not critisizing anyones style of play. Free trade just makes it hard to plan a scenario that attempts to follow a set historical path. By event creating trade units it should be possible to steer the game and make the Battle of the Atlantic a desperate battle for survival which was my intention from the start.
If this can be combined with strategic bombing then I would be pleased. Having spent the last few days doing no work on any of my projects and just kicking ass as the Spartans in Hellas I have noted how important it is to raid minor villages for the slaves they genorate and also the money they give (150 gold).
What I have in mind for the strategic bombing now is a system that rewards the allies for destroying an Axis 'factory' unit by giving them a sum of money and creating some kind of allied unit (possibly Freight in NY). This could also be useful for Commando raids and such like!

[McMonkey]

Quick poll

Another question for all.

Which of the following options would be preferable?

A.Original format
Seperate Infantry, Artillery, AA, AT and Engineer units. This would represent Infantry Brigades and the supporting elements seperately (traditional CivII method)

B.New format
Realistic units such as Infantry Divisions that are assumed to have organic AA, AT, Artillery, Engineers etc.

I am not nessasarily going to go with the most popular option for the remake but I was thinking about this yesterday and thought it would be interesting to discuss. I have noticed that in many Civ games I often end up building loads of Catapults/Howitzers to lay siege to cities in sequence. Option B may get around this somewhat. It would also make space for more interesteing Infantry and Armoured unit variants.

P.s. This was not my original idea, someone else posted it a while back (Exile?) and at the time it seemed a bit too drastic but I have been mulling it over and it does solve a lot of problems.

[AGRICOLA]

Realistic units such as Infantry Divisions that are assumed to have organic AA, AT, Artillery, Engineers etc.

a. Can one actually do without separate Settlers or Engineers? To do so would mean that some generic unit(s), buildable by all playable civs, would have to have to be in the Settler or Engineer slot.

b. How strong would such "Realistic units" be? Would they be jacks of all trades and masters of none or supermen able both to tackle city walls as well as defend like the Spartans at Thermopylae?

[McMonkey]

@Agricola

a.Would it be possible to set all combat units as settlers? Not sure what the AI would do with this though. As most of my scenarios are designed for one tribe only then it would be possible to give the AI normal engineers so it does not get confused!

b.Infantry would ignore city walls and operate in rough terrain and be the good allrounder. Armour would have good attack in open country, move fast but would need infantry support to hold ground.

I realised that the armour in Europa v.1 was too strong in defence and infantry were not worth building. I would like to remedy this.

[McMonkey]

Work on WWII Europa ToT to begin

I have decided to take a break from the Vietnam scenario as at the minute my heart really isn't in it. I still think it has a lot of potential and will certainly be returning to it once my creative energy has been recharged. Anybody making graphics for this game please continue as they will not be made in vain! I just need to leave it alone for a little while.

This is where Europa comes into it. I have been thinking about Version 2 for some time and have got some excellent feedback from Eivind and others as well as a detailed play-test report from Agricola that I have been reading through at work this evening.
After finishing the first version I was pretty sick of the sight of the thing and was glad to be finished. After a break from it I am ready to return and sort out the ToT version.

I have compiled a list of bugs, improvements, alterations and new events ideas which I now need to work through. There have been some interesting discussions regarding trade and strategic bombing as well as the uses for the extra units slots. There are already plenty of WWII graphics available so no need for any new ones!

The main improvement will be the tech tree (a real, non linear one) and new expanded and improved ToT events.

Over the next few weeks I may be asking for help and advice for this project so I though it would make sense to let you all know what I am up to and why it has gone a bit quiet on the Nam front!

First things first, I'm off to convert the scn. file to ToT.

EDIT: Managed to convert Europa after considerable messing about with two computers a USB stick and some trial and error with the Converter (plus a lot of crawling about under the desk swapping over the mouse and monitor ). Took Fairlines advice and got there eventually. Apparently Vista does not have Command Prompt (or I've not seen it) so I will be holding on to the older machine for a while!

EDIT2: P.s. Where has the neet spell checker gone to? I have just noticed a handy one on thr browser bar that works but the other one was much more convenient. I cannot see an option to turn it on!?!

[McMonkey]

First hickup. Transfering the rules file by copy/pasting from the original onto a ToT rules file (I know there are easier ways!) and I have gone wrong womewhere. The Error message is below + a cool pic of Zrinyi in background, my current desktop!. Does this error message give a clue as to where the error is in the Rules file (i.e. Line number) or is it just jargon?

I can fix the problem myself by using Converter properly or re-copy/pasting more carefully but I thought it would be useful to know if the error actually means something.

If I'm rambling then Polish Vodka is to blame!

[Patine]

It means a space or comma's missing somewhere, but you'll have to search the file with a fine-toothed comb, I'm afraid.