WWI-scenario

[Aidun]

Comments please ...

[trevor]

cool... I've been waiting for this, thanks Aidun.

[victorhadin]

I find it interesting you are attempting this, Aidun, as I have also initiated a World War 1 scenario, or had done before the limitations of the PTW editor became known to me.

As it is, I have scaled back the starting time to January 1900 and have put less focus on the war as a whole but more on the tilting balance of power and how it tilted away from Europe and towards Russia and the United States. My scenario now spans 150 years from 1900 to 2050 and is global rather than limited in scope.

I have downloaded what you have done so far and would be extremely interested to hear how you are doing with this project, along with the nature of the beast. (World War 1 only? Europe only? Local? Global?) In particular I am experimenting with using cultural influences to simulate the collapse of the European empires, including Britain's. I will be releasing playable test versions imminently (possibly as soon as tonight) and though much ironing-out is necessary it will prove interesting.

In addition to lessened infrastructure for the Ottomans, give them limited scope for growth, poor land etc. See if you can arrange cultural influences to act against them as well. I am doing such in my scenario, though it is far from perfect.


If you wish to Email me regarding a pool of resources over relative industrial strengths, economic data or somesuch my address is:
victorhadin@yahoo.com


Good luck.

[Norm]

Surfing the forums again after a long, long time....it's me, the mapper btw.

Scenario is looking good, very happy to see my map being put to good use.
Add Malta.
However.
Guess the barbarian huts should be eliminated from the scenario..or, alternatively, be altered to represent the communists in russia, by replacing the basic barbarian unit by something like the guerilla so that they'd be a serious nuisance to the russian war effort.

I'm a bit worried about the small countries: Belgium, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and maybe some balkan coutries as well. They are very likely to be overrun by the great powers unless they have a very good diplomatic position which will prevent that. (of course Belgium is supposed to be overrun but that's because they're belgian)

I've seen some misspelled city names. Not going to write down a list now..maybe later. Also quite important to have consistent city names. Either have them all follow the English spellings/names or name all cities in the native tongue of the country they are in. Moscow/Moskva etc.

Eliminate goody huts.

There's the omnipresent danger of extensive railroad networks: the distance between Bayonne and Memel is essentially 0.



You might run into things like Gibraltar becoming Spanish very early..make sure it has a good cultural advantage (and modify the rules to reduce chances of converting as well)

I might find more things to comment later.

Oh yea...and if you need help with the scenario, then I'd be happy to join the team.

/Norman

[Aidun]

It was my idea to keep the barbarians in Russia, south-eastern Europe and on the Balkan. These are places with a relatively low level of development. In these regions there are always villages that ignore the law. Roving bands were quite common at the beginning of the 20th century in these regions.
You're right that all goodyhuts should be removed. It is just a hell of a job to look aroud everywhere for them. Most of the time, I worked on some piece of the map and removed all the goodyhuts I saw, mut I might have forgotten some.
I don't think barbarians could serve as revolutionaries in Russia. Revolutionaries were inside the cities. I have already found a way to solve this: warwaryness under Absolute Monarchy (despotism is renamed) warwaryness should be enormously high thus creating many unhappy citizens. The AI cannot make peace because of the MPP's: the government must fall some time. Then we must hope they choose their favorite gov: communism. Putting a little too few happymaking buildings in the cities strengthens this. The large population of the Russian cities is because of the large population they had (absolutely, not relatively) in 1914 compared to the other counties. The large numbers are a bit unfair to the other countries, but it also counts as sort of a compensation for the small amount of cities theu have. Civ3 also only works with citizens in the cities and not the ones living in the country, of which Russia had large amounts that could easily be called for service in the army. Although Russia seems to have a bit of a disadvantage, it hasn't.

The small countries play the role that they also played in WWI. I agree with you that their position is extremely dificult. The Netherlands remained neutal, and that is the thy only chance they have. I've buid them in to make it all realistic and for those that seek a little more chalenge. The Netherlands aren't realy a difficult one as long as they get not involved. Belgium is realy tough to play, but ist is compared to the Netherlands far more industrialized. Switzerland is between them. It is not an easy civ to play due to the mountainous area they are placed on, but like the Ned, as long as they don't get involved it's allright. Swiss should play as it has done so long already: staying neutral. Serbia is Difficult. Having a big power to the north and west they are nearly surrounded by the enemy. They are also created for those who want to meet the challenge. Thus the scen is playable on any imaginable dificulty-level. Chieftain-England or chieftain-Germany are most easiest, deigty-Belguim or Deigty-Serbia most difficult. I think Serbia is even harder to play than Belgium as you haven't any strong allies nearby like B has France and Eng. Bulgaria-Romania-Albania and Greece are just there because they were there, but their role is not the largest one although there have been fought great batttles in serbia and Albania and bulgaria. In Romania Russia an Austria met.

I've tried to spell names in the native tongue. The Hague is called Den Haag, as it is called in Dutch. I might have missed some cities. It's one of the reasons I've posted the preview down here, so people can correct me. One can hardly see mistakes made by himself.

I don't understand about the omnipresent danger of extensive railroad networks. Most west-European counties were quite industrialized. Railroad was nearly everywhere in Europe. I consider a RR however not as railroad for a small slow train that was used in the countryside in those day's. The RRs that I have set on the map are the large RRs over which the large and fast trains ride, like the Orient-Express from Paris to Istanbul and the Siberia-railway.

I agree on Gibraltar. It has to have a larger culture to keep British instead of Spanish. I gave it a low culture because it's historically a zero. It has to have a big culture practically to let the game play realistic.

About culture: Important historical cities get a culture fom 400 to about 600. cities that are also very important in modern times get +100 to +500
Cities that are historically a zero, but have an enormous importance in modern times are exceptions to this rule. Frankfurt is an example of this.
Cities that have no historical relevance, but have grown large in modern times get an amount of 100 to 300. The Russians are an exception: Cities that are historically quite unimportant can have a large culture. The idea is that in this city the culturerates of the surrounding cities is accumulated, like the population. This exception makes sure that also Russia is culturally well-developed.

Originally posted by Norm
Oh yea...and if you need help with the scenario, then I'd be happy to join the team.

You're welcome

Aidun

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Aidun
Denmark-Norway

Denmark-Norway ceased being one country after the napoleonic wars, after which Norway was first given to Sweden, revolted and ended up in union with Sweden instead.
This union was then broken in 1905 by which time Norway became independent and was extremely clear about not having any ties to either of the two other countries.
If you're grouping these anyway it might not matter just felt like correcting this

[victorhadin]

I will be happy to join the team if you wish and help to provide information and suchlike that would be of use, though I am unsure of the amount of free time I will have available in the coming month or so.

[Aidun]

Henrik, you're right about Denmark and Norway. Thanks.
I'm thinking but of grooping the three nations of Scandinavia to get a stronger Scandinavia. Scandinavia had few large cities in 1914 and still doesn't have many. To make the civ playable as well (it shall however still be difficult to play) as th other civs old Denmark-Norway and Sweden will be grooped. I hope this doesn't disappoints you: Sweden is no independent civ anymore, but it makes it better playable. May I ask which country was the strongest in 1914, Sweden, Norway or Denmark. It's for the king's name: which king will lead the civ.
I think I will let Scandinavia be medium-industrialized. They will have some colony's in the north to get recources to trade to compensate the missing of towns and the villages of the northern part.

Aidun

[Henrik]

I don't know which was the stronger historically but with the risk of sounding biased I am going to guess Sweden
I don't think either nation had a very strong millitary from the end of the napoleonic wars and onwards, however the Swedish army has almost allways been the stronger one when compared to the Danish one ever since the 30 years war. Both Sweden and Denmark had excelent navies during the early 1800s even by continental standards but I don't know what happened to those after that point (or how they coped with the transition from wodden to steel hulls, etc).
Don't know if any of this helps I am not that good at early 20th century scandinavian history

[Aidun]

Thanks anyway I'll see which king shall rule whole Scandinavia.

Aidun

[Barfus]

if you need any historical help ill do what i can...cant wait to see it

[Ozymandias]

Various thoughts if you are trying to model Europe in 1914 as opposed to a generic free-for-all:

1. Germany went to war with France in response to the Austrian / Serbian / Russian mess literally because the only war plans the German General Staff had prepared involved attacking BOTH France and Russia. As this required a quick victory in the West in order to shift troops East, Germany of necessity treated Belgium's neutrality as the infamous "scrap of paper" -- which forced Britain into the war as a balance-of-power matter.

2. The Central Powers. Germany and Austria-Hungary can be considered one Civ for all intents and purposes --although German troops were generally of higher quality, it was Austrian siege guns, on loan, which levelled the Belgian fortresses. It's a stretch to make the Ottomans part of the same Civ but, absent the ability to forge alliances, it's a reasonable approach. Give them markedly less cities / factories / whatever and they'll obviously build less troops.

3. The Entente. As for Germany and A-H I recommend the same for Britain, France, Serbia, and America. Through in some Arabs with camel-mounted troops that can ignore desert movement penalties. As with the BEF, make these troops irreplaceable (i.e., don't put cities in Arabia, just troops). Keep Russia separate (see below). Again, troop quality varied but, after a time, conscript infantry was conscipt infantry. Suggestions:

3a. Due to the horrific casualty rates of the war, the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) was essentially irreplaceable, as it was comprised (nearly uniquely for Europe) of long term professionals, so proficient at rifle fire that German troops encountering BEF detachments in 1914 often erroneously believed they were up against machine guns. SO -- make the BEF units begin the game in play, but no more can be built!

3b. Make "American Entry" (American troops) in the war an Advance on the Tech Tree.

3c. Imperial Russia's collapse was arguably inevitable as (hindsight being 20-20) the war almost certainly could not have been concluded before Russian resources ran out. Make Imperial Russia's government inferior, from the AI's point of view, to Communism. Have building just about every type of improvement in Russia tied to the Imperial government. So, the AI chooses Communism, no more Cathedrals, Barracks, what-have-you.

4. Leave Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria free to make war or peace as they please.

5. Again, IF you are trying to simulate 1914, the nations that stayed neutral all did so for VERY good reasons. I would literally make their borders impassable terrain and don't bother with armies etc.

6. Almost all infantry should be better on the defense than the offense. Bring plenty of artillery. And don't forget that, as the Entente turned to tanks, so the Germans and Austrians turned to Stosstruppen (shock troops; essentially trained in WW2 infantry tactics) which made some serious headway in 1918 before Germany ran out of steam.

Hoping this has at least been thought-provoking --

Oz

[Ozymandias]

P.S.

VERY good map of Europe 1900 can be found here --

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1900.htm

-O

[Homunculus]

Cool! you did it

[Aidun]

Sorry for letting you wait for such a long time, but I've been working on the scenario again. I was trying to renew the file in one of my previous posts, but the connection sucks. I have some thoughts to share with you, about the machinegun, railroads, super metropolises, and alliances.

Aidun