A good WWII scenario, finally!

[Faboba]

You could just base the T-34 on the German unit ( Panzer, Tiger I, Tiger II whatever you want )

But give it +2 attack, -1 Defense and maybe -1 movement.

It will still have the speed benifit of the Russian Road remember

[Dauphin]

Obviuosly my Maginot UU sarcasm was missed. (Being the ineffectual defence policy that it was, it should not be a UU).

[AeroPrinz]

If you really going to create a good WWII scenario, and need to make some historical reseach, you can contact me, I have a bunch of books about WWII, including Manstein, Huderian, Okumia, Liddelhart and etc.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by AeroPrinz
If you really going to create a good WWII scenario, I have a bunch of books about WWII, including Manstein, Huderian, Okumia, Liddelhart and etc.

Ahem..... It would help if the books spelt it Guderian.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
UUs. There shouldnt be too many or else balancing will be hard

Germany: Panzer (encompasses Tiger, Mark, Panther etc etc)
United Kingdom: Dominion Infantry (Comprised of Aussies, NZ, the toughest infantry in the world after the Americans, Finns, and Ivan )
United States of America: B-17 bomber (only country in the world with good heavy bombers)
France: Partisans (vive la Resistance!)
Soviet Union: T-34 (about equal with Panzer)
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)
Turks: None
Norway: None
Finland: Alpine Troops (same as in civ2 but with a higher attack)
Belgium: None
The Netherlands: Flood Troops (Flood 3/4 of the country to protect the other 1/4) No actually I don't know
Yugoslavia: None
Sweden: None
Spain:None
Portugal: None
Switzerland: Citizen Army (strong on defense)

Good grief, have you not played Captain Nemo's fantastic WW2 scenarios?!?! Each of the major sides were completely redone with customized units. There must have been at least 20 per side, all with their unique values and graphics. Why are you thinking in terms of one or two Unique Units?!?!?! Scenarios are designed for total customization: tech tree, units, movements, map, events, etc. that it becomes a new game. Just take all of the default units listed in the files (txt and gif) and replace them with historically accurate ones, thus they ALL become unique.

One other thing to consider (I'm sure this has been brought up) is the length of time it takes for one civ to make one turn. You don't want more the 4 opponents.

[klesh]

My god Steve...

I am glad someone is talking some sense in here!
There certainly needs to be a plethora of individual unints. There should only be a relative few units that are generic, and multi-national.


And whoever is talking about the Maus as a representative of German armour...geez. They made 2 of them, and both were captured before they saw any type of action. :rollleyes:

I don't have alot of time here, but here are some ideas for more units merely for the Germans...

Germans
Tanks:
PzKw's II, III, IV, V (Panther), VI (Tiger), VI ausf B (KingTiger).

Assault Guns/ Tank Hunters/ etc:
Hummel
Wespe
Hetzer
Jagdpanzer
Jagdpanther
Jagdtiger
Nashorn
Puma
SdKfz-251... and their variants...

Planes:
Bf-109
Fw-190
Ju-87
Ju-88
Me-110
He-111
Me-262

Blah blah blah blah blah... one could go one forever... Infantry, AT guns, AA guns...

Here is a sample of Nemo's units for CivII. Now give the designers over at SLeague a few months and we shall be pumping out good things if CivIII is all it is supposed to be.

There are a few others who modify Nemo's and Alex's units in the same style, so there is a catalogue of almost anything you could think of WWII wise...

Thing Big... Bigger than you have ever thought!


-FMK.

[Steve Clark]

God bless you, Field Marshal. I was shocked to see a thread with nearly 100 posts about a WW2 scenario with no mention of the groundwork that has already been laid. You think that some folks had no idea that Civ2 scenarios have been in existence for years.

Anyway, thanks for posting that link. That was exactly what I had in mind to show as an example but after spending 15 minutes trying to find it, I had no success.

Do some of you now understand what we were talking about in saying that scenarios are made up of dozens and dozens of unique units? You have to get away from the concept that one UU per civ has any value beyond adding flavor.

[Felch]

My two cents:

Given that Firaxis is almost certainly making a perfectly good WWII scenario already, we should consider how we could use a unique perspective to make this one different.

I think that having a world wide perspective (the map is supposedly closer to the giga-maps than the traditional large world map) and starting from 1933 could give a different spin. The start at 1939 was largely accidental. The body of evidence indicates that the Nazi leadership wasn't planning on any wars for several more years, and that they didn't anticipate the reaction the Allies had towards the invasion of Poland.

Furthermore it might be interesting to have an open tech tree. That is to say, civ-specific units will be the exception rather than the norm. After all the differences in aircraft and tank design were either broad enough that they can be easily categorized (by seperating the two engines bombers from the four engine bombers for example) or else largely a matter of details that are difficult to abstract into the civ battle system (e.g. the differences between British and American heavy bombers such as the Lancaster and Liberator).

This is not to say that civ-specific units don't have their place. However, instead of arguing about what models of German armored vehicles should be included, we could simply say that there are certain types of vehicles and anyone with the technology can build them. Civ-specific units could be used to indicate that different armies stressed different ideals and tactics. Thus the Americans may have a B-29, the Soviets the penal battalion (petty criminals drafted into service to perform suicide missions), the British could have commandos, the Nazis could have U-boats, and so on. However, most units would be generic (light armor, medium armor, heavy armor, destroyer, light bomber, jet fighter, paratroopers, marines, rifle company, etc.)

Y'all are prolly more into realism, so I'm not expecting much support on this. But so it goes.

[klesh]

Originally posted by Felch X
My two cents:

Given that Firaxis is almost certainly making a perfectly good WWII scenario already, we should consider how we could use a unique perspective to make this one different.

You mean like their perfectly good one for CivII?

Furthermore it might be interesting to have an open tech tree. That is to say, civ-specific units will be the exception rather than the norm. After all the differences in aircraft and tank design were either broad enough that they can be easily categorized (by seperating the two engines bombers from the four engine bombers for example) or else largely a matter of details that are difficult to abstract into the civ battle system (e.g. the differences between British and American heavy bombers such as the Lancaster and Liberator).

Right, but when you have 80 somethin units, you can afford for the Germans to have a heavy bomber, an american one, and even a british one. You know what I mean. It CAN be devided to have an open tech tree, with each nation having their historical units with stats.

This is not to say that civ-specific units don't have their place. However, instead of arguing about what models of German armored vehicles should be included, we could simply say that there are certain types of vehicles and anyone with the technology can build them. Civ-specific units could be used to indicate that different armies stressed different ideals and tactics. Thus the Americans may have a B-29, the Soviets the penal battalion (petty criminals drafted into service to perform suicide missions), the British could have commandos, the Nazis could have U-boats, and so on. However, most units would be generic (light armor, medium armor, heavy armor, destroyer, light bomber, jet fighter, paratroopers, marines, rifle company, etc.)

Y'all are prolly more into realism, so I'm not expecting much support on this. But so it goes.

Yeah man, to me seeing the germans and the soviets fighting with the same tanks is kinda dumb. I am a huge WWII buff, and it just doesnt seem right. Sometimes concessions have to be made in the larger scenario with more units, sometimes you'll get this generic light tank. But for the most part, to me at least, Historical Realism is what a scenario is all about.

To each his own...

-FMK.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Felch X
My two cents:

Given that Firaxis is almost certainly making a perfectly good WWII scenario already

as well. That scenario was only worthwhile playing as Spain. Did you or anyone else follow that significant effort by the group that made this a comparison game? A few did manage to win WW2 as Spain, with my good friend, Sten Sture, being one.

[Rasbelin]

Re: My god Steve...

Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh

And whoever is talking about the Maus as a representative of German armour...geez. They made 2 of them, and both were captured before they saw any type of action.

But it was before its time. You could even drive
on the bottom of rivers with it. And I marked it with
a smily. But anyway; finally someone else who
understands on German tanks.

BTW, do you agree with me that the Panzer is
a bad UU solution for the Germans in the
actual Civ III? My suggestions are still
Tiger I and Me-262.

[Dry]

Re: My god Steve...

Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh
I am glad someone is talking some sense in here!
There certainly needs to be a plethora of individual unints. There should only be a relative few units that are generic, and multi-national.

I totally disagree with this.
The error made here is the same as for nation=civ.
At the civ2 scale (and I guess civ3 it will be the same), the units that are present on the map cannot represent given specific historical units. They merely represent units whose equipment were based on these tanks/planes...
To be accurate, the units, at civ scale should be named "armored units" or "infantry", just the way they are named in civ1/2.

BUT,
It is true that theSoviets had T-34 since 1939, but they didn't used them in independent armored units, so I see no use of representing those tanks so early.
Germans in 39-40 had only bad or average tanks (PzKw I, II, III), but they used them the way they should be used, making them a very effective weapon.

It is also true that because the German tank tactical was better than the one of any other countries, it also make sense to give the german tank units better statistics.

So, as civ units represent divisions, or even armies, it is the strength of a division or army that should be given. So, as a german panzer unit was better than any other one, let's give them a strong symbolic name, basically the name of a famous german tank. The choice of that symbolic name is to be taken among: Tigre, Panther or whatever.
But, this - let us say - Panther unit should symbolize ANY better then average german panzer unit.

From my point of view, it is nonesense to represent every little historical tank model, just because a PzKw IV division was used the same way and with same efficiency as a PzKw III division, but just 1 year later.

The same may apply to Finn Infantry (Sissu or Sissi if I remember well my ASL games), US planes (or marines! No one here spoke about US marines), British Gurkhas, ...

So even if Soviet Union (and not Russia) had some T-34, best tanks in 1940, they should not be represent in a civ scenario, beacause of the way they used them.
If you really want an effective Soviet tank, you can introduce the first modern heavy tank, the JosephStalin II by the end of 1944.

[Sarxis]

I have this huge atlas of WWII-

I would be interested in helping build the Ultimate CIV WWII scenario.

And even if we don't get some kind of Apolyton group to work together to do it, I will probably make one anyhow.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Dry


Germans in 39-40 had only bad or average tanks (PzKw I, II, III), but they used them the way they should be used, making them a very effective weapon.

Not to mention the British Vickers.

It is also true that because the German tank tactical was better than the one of any other countries, it also make sense to give the german tank units better statistics.

And they were using better technology
(esp. the weaponry of the tanks).

The same may apply to Finn Infantry (Sissu or Sissi if I remember well my ASL games)

It should still be Finnish Infantry, and not Guerilla.

If you really want an effective Soviet tank, you can introduce the first modern heavy tank, the JosephStalin II by the end of 1944.

...=IS-2, but the KV-3 is also a good alternative.
But Katyusha BM-31 would perhaps be a better UU
for the Soviet Union.

[PRIDE OF MOKUM]

If The Netherlands are actually included they should have two, well maybe three UU's.f
Most people don't know it but the Dutch military was actually upgrading their forces. As usual our government did it far too late for the upgrade to have effect. We were fighting the Germans with WW1 weaponry mostly but there were some units which were a pain in the ass of the German invaders, only because of the relative small number of these forces and the rest of the Dutch army, the Germans succeeded in conquering our Kingdom. These units were the G-1A Fokker Fighter , which was far superior to German fighter aircraft those days, but only 23 were available to the Royal Dutch Airforce. The other was the PAG, I think it stand for Persoonlijk Antitank Geschut, which is Dutch for Personnel Antitank Gun. Same story. It could destroy most German tanks in 1940, but we had only a handfull of them. Here's a possible UU which is Marines. Yeah marines. The Royal Dutch Marine Corps is the second oldest marine corps in the world after the british. German paratroopers landing in Rotterdam called these man 'Black Devils', they had a pretty difficult task in taking Rotterdam, again larger numbers of troops and the bombing of Rotterdam (one of the first bombardments in ww2), in which some 800 people were killed and 24000 houses were destroyed, did it. Furthermore Holland should be included for it actually had a strategic value (really!! ). Hitler only invaded our country cause we had the huge port of Rotterdam and he was scared like hell that the allies would just take and use Rotterdam and Dutch airbases to land troops and invade Germany and especially the Ruhr area. That's why the Allies commenced operation Market Garden, it's soooo f*cking easy to reach Germany's main industrial area from Holland. At the other end of the world the Dutch Pacific Fleet (allright like one cruiser, a few destroyers and subs) with some Commonwealth cruisers held off a Japanese fleet which was moving towards Australia. The Allied fleet was defeated but somehow the Japs never came back to try and invade Australia. Thus Holland should be included, with or without UU's . I agree it's just too small to withstand those German panzers and all, but it should be included, maybe along with Denmark, Norway and Balkan countries. That would be the solution, those nations are destined to be conquered but they should not be left out! Ok I talked enough for now