A good WWII scenario, finally!

[KrazyHorse]

Yet another joke springs to mind. It's a bit long, but it's worth it.

To provide a personal background to his history class, the teacher invited a WWII flying ace to his high school to give a lecture. The teacher gives a brief introduction, then invites the old pilot up to describe the most dangerous mission he ever flew.

"One fine morning I took off from our base in England to escort bombers into Germany. As soon as we crossed the Channel, we knew something was wrong. The sky was full of enemy planes. Before we could even say 'Tallyho', they were on us. One of the Fokkers got behind me, but I managed to shake him. I shot down two more Fokkers that were in front of me, and saw dozens more of the Fokkers go down"

At each repetition of the word "Fokker", the children laugh harder and harder. Finally, the teacher gets up to explain.

"Children, the Fokker was a very important design of plane in both world wars"

The veteran looks in puzzlement at the teacher and says: "Sure it was, but these Fokkers were Messerschmidts"

[Dauphin]

Oh, the ribbing that Anthony Fokker would have got at school.

[Falconius]

Well, you can all put your scenario plans on hold for now. What you are proposing in this thread is impossible, because the editor, as of now, is a worthless piece of garbage!

To begin with, starting locations are ALWAYS random. So you can't place the Russians in Russia, for instance.

What's more, you can't create cities, only starting locations!

And, while it may not matter for this particular scenario, only global maps are possible (so you can't have strictly European scenarios).

All of these were possible using the old Civ II editor, for crying out loud! I am unbelievably disappointed in this useless piece of crap they have the nerve to call a map editor!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Harlan
I agree that it would be better to treat the Pacific and Europe theaters separately. They really were two separate wars happening at the same time.

.

Not from the US point of view. For US, THE big grand strategic question throughout the war was how much of its resources to devote to Pacific, versus Europe. The point of doing WW2 in Civ, rather than in a more traditional war game, would be to address hese kind of grand strategic/ resource allocation issues. Indeed this would be a VERY good test of how well Civ3 works.

This is not to say that scenarios on individual theatres cant be interesting. Obviously if you are focusing on Germany, Japan, Russia, or to a lesser extent Britain as protagonists that is the way to go.

LOTM

[mfauzi]

Hmm just a thought. Why not use special techs reserved for each nation instead of UUs? I mean the way it was in Civ 2. I mean, if we give them UU, doesn't it make it a golden age for that nation? I mean, everytime a panzer wins, it will cause a golden age for germany. Weird huh?

BTW, if you're planning to do one with the pacific theatre involved, don't forget Thailand (or the Kingdom of Siam as it was known then). They signed a peace treaty with Japan, allowing them a right of passage and the building of bases in Thailand (maybe represented by forts), allowing the Japanese to take over Malaya. Furthermore, Thailand was the only sovereign nation in South East Asia not to have been colonized and remained independent to this day

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hopefully, if the Civ3 patch re-introduces the SMAC concept of allies sharing cities and military infrastructure. Then it will allow scenario makers to seperate out the Pacific Allies into seperate nations (U.K, Australia, U.S.A etc). This was one of the reasons I had so wanted this concept included in the game, and why leaving it out seems such a GIANT step backwards!!!
Anyway, lets keep our fingers crossed and hope the patch makers have come to their senses on this matter!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

[mfauzi]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Hopefully, if the Civ3 patch re-introduces the SMAC concept of allies sharing cities and military infrastructure. Then it will allow scenario makers to seperate out the Pacific Allies into seperate nations (U.K, Australia, U.S.A etc). This was one of the reasons I had so wanted this concept included in the game, and why leaving it out seems such a GIANT step backwards!!!
Anyway, lets keep our fingers crossed and hope the patch makers have come to their senses on this matter!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

Yeah, I liked that feature in SMAC where you can sent in your units into allied cities. I wonder why they took the feature out. After all, Civ III took the engine from SMAC, I don't see why they didn't retain it.

[diegoami]

Italy: Underwater Chariots (a torpedo with 2 frogmen on bord who drive it underwater and steer it towards a ship (these Italians were so pathetic inthe 20th Century that they lost to an Abyssinian Army whose most sophisticated weapong was the spear. This is the only example in history where a modern army has lost to a primitive one)

What about the British who were slaughtered in Afghanistan and Sudan? And Custer's army who lost to the native Indians? Americans in Vietnam? Soviet Union in Afghanistan?

Abyssinians had not only spears. They had rifles.

And Italy, in the end, managed to occupy Abyssinia and defeat the local army (killing several civilians by the way). Unlike Americans in Vietnam.

[diegoami]

Hi

I just do not think there can be only one ultimate scenario about WWII. Have a look, there are at least ten WWII scenarios for Civ II. But having the 16 Civs Cap, you can now create several scenarios, each one focussing on a particular juncture in the war.
(I remember the "Cruel War" scenario, focusing on the war in the Atlantic between Axis submarines and Allied ships)

Has anybody figured out how to create events? There is no such file as events.txt. Without it, Germany could just stay peaceful and win through culture or space race!

Anyway, the following is about a scenario I would be willing to play..
When creating a scenario, you just cannot include every one, and you must lump countries together.
Creating a Europe scenario, I think leaving out Poland would be a major mistake (which fought both the Nazi and Soviet Union), but I would lump Poland with Slovakia and Baltic Republics. I would not lump Italy together with Germany (Italy turned on Germany in 1943). Danemark and Norway could be lumped together. So that is my proposal, assuming you start after the Anschluss & invasion of Czech Republic and Italy's Albania invasion (April 1939)

1 USA (enters late in the war)
2 Britain
3 France
4 Germany & Austria & Czech Republic
5 Italy & Albania
6 Soviet Union
7 Yugoslavia
8 Poland & Slovakia & Baltic Republics
9 Danemark & Norway & Iceland
10 Sweden & Switzerland & Portugal & Ireland
11 Benelux Countries
12 Turkey
13 Greece
14 Spain
15 Romania & Hungary & Bulgaria (sided with Germany)
16 Finnland

Middle East and Africa would belong mostly to Britain, France and
Italy (Libia).
Of course one could argue whether Austria and Czech Republic should be separate, whether Yugoslavia should be regarded as a whole...
Iceland could be lumped with Britain
, Bulgaria with Spain,
Finnland with Romania & Hungary & Bulgaria,
Benelux Countries with France (they fought almost at the same time against Germany).

Hope I did not forget any country.

Some civilization would be wiped out soon, but towns would retain their nationalities and "resist".

Bye
Diego

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Here are my suggestions for civs in a WWII scenario:

Firstly, for the European theatre only:
1. U.S.A (has MDP with Britian)
2. British Commonwealth (inlcudes Canada, Australia and colonies like Palestine and Egypt-Sudan)
3. Germany
4. Italy
5. Scandanavia
6. Poland
7. France (inlcudes colonies in Algiers etc.)
8. Greece
9. Soviet Union
10. Serbia
11. Croatia
12. Turkey
13. Iberia (Spain and Portugal)
14. Middle East
15. Neutral Powers 1 (Axis Aligned)
16. Neutral Powers 2 (Allies Aligned)

In the Pacific theatre, my votes would be for:
1. British protectorates (India, Singapore, Malaya)
2. U.S.A
3. Japan
4. China
5. Korea
6. Thailand
7. French Indochina
8. Dutch East Indies
9. Australia (includes New Guinea)
10. New Zealand
11. Mongolia
12. Neutral Powers 1 (Axis Aligned)
13. Neutral Powers 2 (Allies Aligned)

For a total World War Scenario, I'd have to say:
1. British Commonwealth (includes Canada, Australia and Britains colonial holdings)
2. U.S.A
3. Nazi Germany
4. France (includes all Asian and African colonies)
5. Holland (mostly for Dutch East Indies)
6. Scandanavia
7. Poland
8. Greece
9. Balkans
10. Japan
11. China (includes Korea)
12. Turkey
13. U.S.S.R
14. Italy
15. Neutral Powers 1 (Axis Aligned)
16. Neutral Powers 2 (Allies Aligned)

Of course all my suggestions above depend on the following:
a) A complete scripting language and events editor
b) the ability to adjust corruption, war-weariness and unhappiness levels on a city to city basis (to reflect the anger of Nazi-occupied cities in Hungary and Checzhoslovakia and the ennui of British and French colonies in Asia and Middle East!)
c) The ability to edit diplomatic relations, AI personalities and natural loyalties (to account for the alignment of the Neutral powers as well as the other major governments)

Anyway, sorry for the length of the post and I hope I haven't offended anyone by leaving out their favourite nation!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[mfauzi]

In the pacific theatre, shouldn't Australia and New Zealand be lumped together (or lumped together with the British Commonwealth)?

[Marla]

Something must be kept in everyone's mind: what saved England from german invasion isn't its glorious army but the fact that it was an island.
I don't think we must have a stronger England than France at the beginning of the scenario. France had been invaded because it was just near Germany.
Which means, in 1939, France, England and Russia even more, has poor armies compared to Germany. Russia has an old fashioned army also... with ww1 materials (at the start).

If you want a world map for the war, I propose mine , but well, I'm also for a division in 2 scenarios (Europe and Pacific).... so my post is mainly for advertisement
Click here to take it:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36212

Here's the snapshot of the map

[Frank Johnson]

Honestly if Civ3 is in the same form as it is now when we get editing tools, I'd start the game in Spring 1942 if its a world map. That's because I don't think you can recreate pearl harbor in the current model. Plus the game will be entirely historical since the attack on russia will be well under way, but could still go either way.

You can't really worry about WW2 untill you...
1) get events
2) fighters can intercept damn bombers
3) Air units can sink ships and ships can shoot back

Otherwise you might as well go make more Civ2 WW2 scenarios.