Great War (WWI) scenario?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by HisMajestyBOB
Personally, i think the US should not be included (just give units to the Allies)

Absolutely not. England tried for quite a while to get us to enter the war, which only occured because of the Zimmerman Telegram and unrestricted submarine warfare. The USA was certainly not part of the Allies for quite some time, and the diplomatic wooing of the US into the war should be part of the challenge of the scenario if you play as an allied power.

Also, France and Britain should be one civ, so they can cooperate effectively. Finally, a way to simulate the Russian Revoltuion and Russia's withdrawl from the war would be nice (maybe w/ events?)

They didn't cooperate as one civ. Besides, we have 16 civs or whatever... why not use them?
A good way to model the russian revolution would be great, although from what I hear of the Civ3 events text (or lack thereof) it seems pretty unlikely for now...

[johncmcleod]

This would be a good idea. Someone should make this scenario. Belgium should be in it, the completely held off the German army for weeks despite being completely outnumbered by the Germans while the British got the BEF set up in Europe.

[Rasbelin]

I'm looking forward to that, but the scenario utility must first support permanently locating cities. And I might even more likely do it for the Civ II platform, and not Civ III.

[Dan Severn]

Why is everyone afraid to give civs more than 1 UU?

In Civ2, good scenarios often uprooted the tech tree entirely and gave each civ its own unique set.

[Jon Shafer]

I might work on this scenario.. maybe we could pool a bunch of people's efforts who're interested in it and get something going.
Right now I'm working on my Pacific Theater scenario, but that shouldn't take more than a couple weeks to complete. After that I wanted to do either a Napoleon or WWI scenario. Anyone interested?

[Rasbelin]

I don't think I'm not ready yet, as there's that Civ II scenario contest, and I haven't played Civ III for many months, so I'll have to do some playing first. Perhaps later on...

[WW1 Nut]

Don't bother putting the american's in, they were useless. Well according to first hand reports by General Ludendorff. They came in to late to matter.

I'm with the guy who said why not make more than 1 UU, there are soooo many options there.

And for all those not entirly sic of WW1 useless knoledge, the only reason the German offensive was so unsucessful was because of the reassigning of the troop ratio contrary to what General Von Schlieffen had origionally put them at 10 years earlier when that plan was devised by the German General staff.

I'm not sure how exactly one would make both Russia have the revolution, and Italy join, but most of the other countries could just begin the game on one side or another. It's really not worth the agrivation to make the different countries join at spasific dates.

Oh and IMO, the British comanndo should be Canadian. And Sir Arthur Currie should be a British Leader.

[Constantine]

Sure the Americans came in late, but they certainly weren't useless, and Ludendorff doesn't seem like one who should have the defining opinion on it anyways, though his insight shouldn't be overlooked. And I really don't think anyone should listen to someone who considers history "useless knoledge." (is that how you spell in c-a-n-a-d-i-a?)

[WW1 Nut]

1 - F-U it was a typo, if that's all you can say you have one useless argument.

2 - Ludendorff is harelded as one of the greatest generals of all time, the US sucked, it's a fact, they have the highest Casualty : Kill ratio of all the countries (even the Austro-Hungarians did more) in the short time they were in the war. They had an 8% casualty rate and they were in the war for a little over a year. (and they weren't even in really any of the more heated battles) This was partially due to the fact that, in their ignorance, many of their generals did not listen to the advice of Brittish, French, and other countries that had been in the war for much longer then they had.

3 - Well I'm sorry to say, but at least for me History is almost useless trivia, it's fun to know, I intend to end up teaching it, but frankly, in the hunter-gatherer sence of the term, it is useless. History is good to know, but I think I'd rather have shelter, food, air, etc.

[Constantine]

1-Wasn't Ludendorff the one who modified the Schlieffen plan?

2-By the war's end, America had occupied more land on the western front than the British forces did.

3-High casualties were due to a lack of experience and that the Americans were sent to attacks the best defended areas of the Germany's western front in 1918, and by the way, casualty statistics have no relation to the amount of time a country fights.

4-In the time that America was in the war, it was never unsuccessful in repulsing an attack when on the defensive, and never fell short of attaining its offensive goals (not an easy task against us Germans )

5-Check out The Great War Society's AMERICA'S MILITARY CONTRIBUTION TO VICTORY IN THE GREAT WAR at www.worldwar1.com/dbc/salsresp.htm id you're not convinced.

6-My arguments are also organized by number, so take that! Haha! Sorry canada person.

[Jon Shafer]

A Canadian defending Germany and a German defending America... how weird.

The (modified) Von Schlieffen plan would have worked if Kluck hadn't deviated from the plan and headed east instead of enveloping Paris like he was supposd to in the autumn of 1914.

America entering had less of an impact than Russia leaving. It was important, but by 1918 when they entered, things were pretty much getting set already. All of the fresh manpower that America added was a huge boost to the allied cause near the end of the war.

[Constantine]

I'm just defending the importance and ability of the US military, wouldn't catch me defending their politics.

[Jon Shafer]

I'm the first to say that the US had great importance in WWII, and not as much as any other Allied power in WWI.

Hitler declaring war on the United States... Tsch... what a moron.

[jreza99]

America really only made an impact in its industrial capacity. As it is it took her a year to mobilize and raise a sufficient army. We were unexperienced also going in. If anything, just our presence in numbers helped. As for the Air Service during the first World War, America's suffered a rate of almost 100% casaulties at the hands of the Germans.

[Andrew_Jay]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Canada had a higher casualty rate, some 66 000 dead out of 600 000 or 700 000 soldiers (all out of a population of only about 8 million at that). However, I find interesting especially with the First World War is that there is almost a perverse pride from having a higher casualy figure. That war was not a pretty one, and nothing got done cheaply in terms of lives. Brilliant victories still left as many as 10% killed or wounded (see Vimy Ridge below). I've been considering writing a history paper on this, how since the First World War, people remember defeats and loses much more than victories. Here in my province of Newfoundland the fact that we lost our entire battalion on the first day of the Somme offensive is remembered every July 1st (and there is a lot of friction due to Canada day also being July 1st). Before the First World War, I don't think people would have so readily remembered their defeats. But then again, there were few actual "victories" in the First World War, just battles where the death toll was merely "horrendous", and not "catastrophic".
Also, in the end the US only contributed about as much man power as Canada, though in a shorter period of time. Their contribution was probably more by the fact that they raised morale after the allies lost Russia, and allowed the allies to have that little extra puch to finally convince the Germans and Ausro-Hungarians that they were going to lose.

Anyway, how about Canadian troops being a British UU, seriously. We fough amazingly at Vimy Ridge - a brilliant attack that left only 3 658 dead and 7004 wouldned which is actually good in First World War terms. Canada used only 100 000 men, while the last time the British and French tried to take the ridge they LOST 150 000 men. After that (this is true) the British had to be extra careful that the Germans did not know where they were placing their Canadian units. If a Canadian Division took up positions in a particular stretch of the front, is was almost certain that a major attack would be launched from there in a matter of days. Knowing where the Canadians were was actually a very reliable way to know when and where an attack would occur.
So anyway, perhaps Canadian Infantry (I don't know, give them a kilt or something) could have really good attack and defense values, but only be built or drafed in Canada; probably give Canada a couple of cities like Toronto, Ottawa & Montreal on the far left of the map, maybe you could even have to deal with extra unrest in French Montreal.

Also, one more idea that I was working on for my own First World War Scenario was airplanes. I wanted to give planes the ability to scout and intercect only, and let Zeppelins bomb. This would represent that the air war came from scouting with planes, then stopping the enemy from scouting till you eventually had planes shooting each other down for little strategic gain. It would work really well if planes could be intercepted when scouting and you gave them equl attack and defense (i.e. ADM: 4-4-0), This way you could use your planes to scout over an enemy city and draw up their fighters for a dog fight, which would be even.

Anyway, those are my ideas I've been looking forward to a First World War scenario since I saw how well the regular Infantry represented the troops of the time.