Simple way to make CIV more "real"

[Austin]

Originally posted by raguil_79


Austin:

I think you should reread Overy's book, he clearly mentions that the Allies could not have done it without the Soviets, in fact one of the first chapters is on how the soviets won the battles of Stalingrad and Kurst, THE turning points of the war, way before lend-lease began to show its full effect. I also recommend you read Albert Seaton (The Russo-German War) who convincingly argues that the soviets still could have won without lend-lease. David Glantz also mentions this (When Titan Clashed)

Overy is quite clear on the nature and proportions of what the Allies sent in Lend Lease. The key point is that the Soviets only churned out the mass quantitites of weapons they did because they had the luxury of only having to make weapons. The US also supplied things the Russians could not make for themselves, like radios, that are absolutely critical to modern warfare.

Without Lend Lease a lot of Russian workers would have been growing food or making trucks instead of endlessly churning out T-34's, so the Red Army would have been a lot smaller. Without the commo gear they would have been stuck with 1941 style tactics (i.e. tank platoons having to manouver in lock step based on hand signals). If the Germans could have maintained the 1941 kill ratio they could have held the Russians off indefinetly.

I'm sorry but the war was a near run thing as it was. Making the Red Army a lot smaller AND simultaneously less capable would have helped the Germans immensely.

Austin

[Austin]

Originally posted by raguil_79
I've been giving some though on the 1945 scenario, it would be a really even contest, much more so than WW2 itself.

From my WW2 knowledge it would be an issue of (and this sounds like pre-Super Bowl debate with the russians being Oakland and the allies TB):

1) Would Russian armor superiority, in both quantity AND quality be the decisive factor in the ground war? (considering US and British infantry qualitative superiority). YES. Soviet armor was miles ahead of the allies by 1945.

No it wasn't. Exhibit A: Pershing. Exhibit B: Centurion. And while tank stats are exiting, they are probably the least significant factor in determining OVERALL military power. In the less glamorous but vital areas of logistics and doctrine, especially artillery doctrine the Wallies were miles ahead of the Soviets.

2) Would the Red Air Force be good enough and large enough to stand a bomber offensive by the US and RAF? NO. Russian fighters were availiable in huge numbers and were of a higher quality than most realize but I think were still slightly inferior to P-51Ds and Spitfire XIVs. The allies also had the Meteor jet and soon the P-80. Also, even though the fighter force might put a check on any daytime bombings, they had nothing to counter the nighttime bombings that the RAF could have put up.

The Russian airforce was totally optimized for low altitude operations in direct support of the ground forces. They would have been totally helpless against an opponent that typically operated at medium to high altitudes. Even at the very end of the war the pathetic remnants of the Luftwaffe would clean the Russian's clocks if they rose above 3,000 feet or so.

Carpet bombing away!

Air power vs. ground power. Intersting matchup. Back then the edge would go to ground power. Still, I wouldn't forget the huge amphibous options available to the allies, the possibilty for example, of a landing somewhere in the middle east or central asia where bombers could pound the Urals and the Cacasus oilfields.

The Wallies also have an edge in ground power, especially in doctrine. While Stavka often showed some interesting strategies Red Army operations at the tactical and operational level more or less amount to throwing bodies at them till they run out of bullets.

The real killer is that 80% of Russia's oil is sitting on the Turkish border.

I would give victory to the Allies if they managed to survive the initial Soviet onslaught, say, the first 6 months or even less which would give them time to implement the amphibious options mentioned. The possibility of a Soviet rout in central europe, however, was very real, just like Ganon could have routed the TB defense...

The most likely series of events is the Soviets pushing the Wallies back from the Elbe to the Rhine. At that point they have to stop to consolidate logistics. Then the Wallies rally, pound them mercilessly from the air, and roll them back.

Austin

[Austin]

Supply

The lack of any sort of supply constraints in Civ III is what, in my opinion, makes warfare post riflemen in Civ III a laughable mockery.

I mean you almost never see lines forming in Civ III's versions of WWI or WWII. Usually what you see is vast mechanized Mongol Horde stacks that galump along from city to city.

The best military strategy in Civ III often amounts to forming big mega stacks and sending them to the nearest enemy city or resource.

Why would you never see this in actual warfare? Because you would get Stalingraded every time. Why does it work in Civ III? Because there are no supply rules.

Here is a very, VERY simple fix to this problem that would force you to form lines and protect your flanks just like real armies do. It would be trivial to code.

Have a check at the end of each player's turn. Any military unit that has a hostile ZOC in each square surrounding it is eliminated.

Now you can't just build up a mega stack and send it to the nearest city. You have to have other stacks protecting it's flanks. The natural result of this would be having to strike a balance between flank protection and concentrating force, which would lead to forming lines.

Austin

[Master Zen]

1) Both the Pershing and the Centurion had arrived in limited quantities in europe by mid-1945, in fact, the Centurion never saw combat. The mass of allied armor was the Sherman and even in its later variants was no match for the T-34. The small number of pershings and centurions were swamped by the IS-2 heavy tank which was used in large numbers for the battle of berlin, and later the even more monstrous IS-3

Allied doctrine was not patriculary spectacular, the logistics were first rate I agree, but I'm not sure the allies would have an artillery edge as you claim, even less considering the HUGE amounts of artillery available to the soviets.

I think we both agree that had the russians not won quickly, the Allies would have had a long-term edge. I still do not agree in that Lend-Lease was what gave the russians the edge. My prime example is the 1942 campaign, fought without Lend-Lease in full effect. Learning from their mistakes the russians succesfully avoided the encirclments which had led to disaster the year before, fielded massive reserve forces which the Germans could not hope to muster and unleashed them at the perfect time. This would have happened even if the Germans took Moscow in 41, they wouldn't have gotten too far past the city and were still hundreds of miles from the USSR's industrial core in the Urals. The war was lost on june 22, 1941 since there was NO way Germany could have conquered a country as vast as the USSR.

As with Civ3, I like your idea on logistics, it is something that has pissed me off too. I do agree that surrounded units should have a HP penalty which would force them to move in fronts.

[Panag]

hi ,

, the supply question , .....

, simple , make for certain terrains an option that no railroad can be build , make also an option that while there is a railroad there is a max number of spaces a unit can move , ...

there should also be an option that would deal with railroads in other terrain , trains move slower in mountains , .... etc , .....

the "rebase" should be limited to the range of the airplane in question , .... (!)

Firaxis , ...

have a nice day

[TomCB]

Panag's suggestion forgets the fact that turns in CIV are years long.
I don't have a problem with rail being unlimited from a realistic stand point, but only because a turn is atleast a year.
I liked the supply suggestion by Austin, my only issue with that is the AI ability to expolit it.

As far as lend lease goes, I can only provide a list of what was delivered. As far as war material goes, and even support, it wasn't as much as it may seem.

The Americans in particular did have the nasty habit of recovering from an attack quickly, ala Battle of the Bulge.
Allot would have depended on how much of the allied force was crushed if the attack was a suprise, or how much Russian force was destroyed if it were an allied attack.
Would Russian units change side if their ethnic group had been brutalized, I doubt it since so many family members would still be "guarded" by Stalin.
If the allies could have pushed the Russians out of Germany and returned the 3 million or so POW's added to the 2 million or so that were still in Europe already, and maybe even overlooked some of the evil that certain German leaders had commited in exchange for help, that could have been a formidable force.
I think it would go to surprise and moral, and it would have been the allies to win and the Russians to lose.

I do not think that the allies would have decided to stop at the border if they had been attacked.
If attacked, and you can get your people behind you, you go all the way, especially with a new A bomb every couple of weeks starting in 46.

This all assumes that the spineless Truman would have had the balls to go through with it.
He proved how weak he was in Korea and he was overall one of the worst Presidents the US could have had at the time.
Churchill was out and appeasement was back in.

NOW, the one thing that I think backs Austin's position is that if Stalin thought he could have won, he would have tried.
Would Patton have died in the accident?
Would the attack have taken place before or after he died?
No other American commander, except maybe for Pattons second, Abrams, could have used Americas near useless armor to effect.

As far as "crude" troops from the balkans. I would rather have had them instead of the Romanians that were guarding the German flanks at Stalingrad.
Even the Russian made fun of them.

Germany was not interested in conquering the "country", they were only interested in moving German civilians into depopulated lands. Sort of a colonization more than an occupation.

Carpet bombing of almost anything except for Japanese cities was pretty useless.
They burned real nice though........LOL

Would Japan have cut a deal with the allies, let us live and we will fight Russia with with?
That one is so far out that I have no idea, just thought of it.

New tanks like the Patton were not around until the mid 50's and the Centurion first saw action in the various Arab Isreal wars, were it and the tactics of Isreal dominated Russian tanks. However, it must be mentioned that no Arab country has ever had an army that could stand against a Western Army.
Only Vietnam was able to defeat western powers, other than that, there are few examples in history were non western armies defeated western one.
Barbarian hordes maybe, but they were pretty much absorbed into the Roman Empire more than occupied it.

Well, I am dragging this even further off topic, I will stop now.

[Panag]

Originally posted by TomCB
Panag's suggestion forgets the fact that turns in CIV are years long.
I don't have a problem with rail being unlimited from a realistic stand point, but only because a turn is atleast a year.
I liked the supply suggestion by Austin, my only issue with that is the AI ability to expolit it.

As far as lend lease goes, I can only provide a list of what was delivered. As far as war material goes, and even support, it wasn't as much as it may seem.

The Americans in particular did have the nasty habit of recovering from an attack quickly, ala Battle of the Bulge.
Allot would have depended on how much of the allied force was crushed if the attack was a suprise, or how much Russian force was destroyed if it were an allied attack.
Would Russian units change side if their ethnic group had been brutalized, I doubt it since so many family members would still be "guarded" by Stalin.
If the allies could have pushed the Russians out of Germany and returned the 3 million or so POW's added to the 2 million or so that were still in Europe already, and maybe even overlooked some of the evil that certain German leaders had commited in exchange for help, that could have been a formidable force.
I think it would go to surprise and moral, and it would have been the allies to win and the Russians to lose.

I do not think that the allies would have decided to stop at the border if they had been attacked.
If attacked, and you can get your people behind you, you go all the way, especially with a new A bomb every couple of weeks starting in 46.

This all assumes that the spineless Truman would have had the balls to go through with it.
He proved how weak he was in Korea and he was overall one of the worst Presidents the US could have had at the time.
Churchill was out and appeasement was back in.

NOW, the one thing that I think backs Austin's position is that if Stalin thought he could have won, he would have tried.
Would Patton have died in the accident?
Would the attack have taken place before or after he died?
No other American commander, except maybe for Pattons second, Abrams, could have used Americas near useless armor to effect.

As far as "crude" troops from the balkans. I would rather have had them instead of the Romanians that were guarding the German flanks at Stalingrad.
Even the Russian made fun of them.

Germany was not interested in conquering the "country", they were only interested in moving German civilians into depopulated lands. Sort of a colonization more than an occupation.

Carpet bombing of almost anything except for Japanese cities was pretty useless.
They burned real nice though........LOL

Would Japan have cut a deal with the allies, let us live and we will fight Russia with with?
That one is so far out that I have no idea, just thought of it.

New tanks like the Patton were not around until the mid 50's and the Centurion first saw action in the various Arab Isreal wars, were it and the tactics of Isreal dominated Russian tanks. However, it must be mentioned that no Arab country has ever had an army that could stand against a Western Army.
Only Vietnam was able to defeat western powers, other than that, there are few examples in history were non western armies defeated western one.
Barbarian hordes maybe, but they were pretty much absorbed into the Roman Empire more than occupied it.

Well, I am dragging this even further off topic, I will stop now.

hi ,

ahem , "turnless" , years to months , etc , .....



have a nice day

[Master Zen]

I'm not so sure Stalin did not attack the west knowing he would lose, after a war in which 20 million of your countrymen are killed it is doubtful that even a leader as heartless as Iosif had the heart (or the guts) for another one.

Psycologically, the Soviets were more bent on avoiding another invasion from the west, which was mainly the reason for the creation of their "security zone" of the Warsaw Pact nations buffering the motherland.

Patton died in dec. 45, by that time the US had employed the A-bomb so it's pretty easy to figure out who would have won in a war at that time. Had the russians (or allies) attacked in May, they would have had almost 3 months to the day that the US dropped the first bomb on Japan. Not enough time, IMO to conquer the West.

When I said "conquered" Germany, I meant it more in the military sense, I still believe the USSR would have fought on even if Moscow had been taken, and there was no way the Germans could have won even without so much as a pair of boots being sent by Lend-Lease.

As for Arabs, they might have had the same doctrine as the Soviets, but they were nowhere as well trained or equipped, unlike Israel. Plus, they were not fighting for the survival of their nation.

[Tattila the Hun]

An Idea. Weather. Bad crops, tanks stuck in mud, influenza...

[Panag]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
An Idea. Weather. Bad crops, tanks stuck in mud, influenza...

hi ,

earthquakes , floods , fire's , etc , .....

"random events" , they have mentioned they are looking into it , .....

it has to be possible

have a nice day

[Austin]

Originally posted by raguil_79
1) Both the Pershing and the Centurion had arrived in limited quantities in europe by mid-1945, in fact, the Centurion never saw combat.

Because the Germans were crushed first and the war was over of course. That wouldn't be the case here.

The mass of allied armor was the Sherman and even in its later variants was no match for the T-34.

The Sherman was even less of a match for the Panther, and the Germans still lost didn't they? That's because tank statistics, while cool, are not the primary factor that determines overall combat power.

In the areas that most greatly influence military power, the Wallies had a massive edge.

Allied doctrine was not patriculary spectacular, the logistics were first rate I agree, but I'm not sure the allies would have an artillery edge as you claim, even less considering the HUGE amounts of artillery available to the soviets.

The reason the Soviets had such huge massive amounts of artillery was because they were so incompetent, they basically had to line em up hub to hub and blaze away to have a chance at hitting anything. This is obviously a very inflexible arrangement, and Soviet artillery shoots often took a long long time to set up and plan.

By contrast the Americans had the best artillery doctrine of WWII by a long shot; it's one of the major reasons why they won. Under the American system an entire corps worth of artillery could be concentrated on a single target by a single junior FO if the need was great enough. 15 minutes later that artillery could be pasting something on the other side of the battlefield.

By contrast German artillery had very very quick reaction times, but it was very very difficult to get artillery assets assigned to different units to work together on a single target.

I think we both agree that had the russians not won quickly, the Allies would have had a long-term edge.

What is most likely to happen is that the Russians go from the Elbe to the Rhine. At this point they have to pause to let their logistics catch up with them. This allows the Wallies to consolidate and regroup, they then use their tremendous air superiority to wear down the Russian armies. After consolidation, they then push the Russians back. Kind of like a gigantic Battle of the Bulge.

I still do not agree in that Lend-Lease was what gave the russians the edge. My prime example is the 1942 campaign, fought without Lend-Lease in full effect. Learning from their mistakes the russians succesfully avoided the encirclments which had led to disaster the year before,

The Red Army was still practising the same forward defense crap in 1942 that they did in 1941. The only reason that the opening acts of Fall Blau did not bag a lot of prisoners is that the Russians had most of their army deployed around Moscow. Between Voronezh and Rostov they were pretty thin on the ground.

Had Fall Blau been aimed at Moscow where the bulk of the Russian forces was, that bulk would have been gutted.

fielded massive reserve forces which the Germans could not hope to muster and unleashed them at the perfect time.

Please, do not make me laugh. Operation Mars was supposed to be the big event of the Russian counteroffensive, and the Germans utterly crushed it. Operation Saturn, which eventually led to Stalingrad was only supposed to be a supplementary operation.

The only reason Stalingrad happened was because the Germans, thanks to Hitler, comitted two major strategic blunders. They dispersed their forces too much trying to take the Caucaus and Stalingrad at the same time, and they remained fixated on a single axis assault against Stalingrad and neglected their flanks.

The Russians themselves never expected the result at Stalingrad that they got, they expected to surround a corps or two at most, not a whole army.

Absent Hitler the Germans would have most likely inflicted the same ass whupping on Saturn as they did Mars, and as they did to the early Popov offensive aimed at Kharkov.

This would have happened even if the Germans took Moscow in 41, they wouldn't have gotten too far past the city and were still hundreds of miles from the USSR's industrial core in the Urals.

That industrial core wasn't functioning yet. Moscow was key for two reasons; it is very likely to have provoked a political collapse or crisis, and for the second half of 1941 it was the only functioning munitions centre the Soviets had.

Most of Soviet war making industry was either in German hands or in transit to the Urals post August, the Red Army had to rely upon the factories around Moscow to tide them over till all those factories got moved and set back up again, which is an incredibly difficult and lengthy process. If the Germans take Moscow before the winter hits, the Red Army has to go 4 months with very little replaements or production. That plus the political effects would probably mean the end of the Soviet Union.

The war was lost on june 22, 1941 since there was NO way Germany could have conquered a country as vast as the USSR.

The Germans lost the war on at least two occasions; they lost it not going for Moscow in 1941, and they lost it not going for Moscow in 1942. In either case they would have dealt the Red Army blows it could not have recovered from.

As with Civ3, I like your idea on logistics, it is something that has pissed me off too. I do agree that surrounded units should have a HP penalty which would force them to move in fronts.

Yup.

Austin

[Austin]

Originally posted by TomCB
I liked the supply suggestion by Austin, my only issue with that is the AI ability to expolit it.

Exploit as in cheat? Or Exploit as in the AI is too dumb to avoid being encircled?

As far as lend lease goes, I can only provide a list of what was delivered. As far as war material goes, and even support, it wasn't as much as it may seem.

The key issue it that it included items that are a) key to waging a modern war and b) the Soviets couldn't make for themselves.

NOW, the one thing that I think backs Austin's position is that if Stalin thought he could have won, he would have tried.

No doubt there. The Russians in general and Stalin in particular became even more paranoid about invasion syndrome after WWII. If they thought they had a chance to push the Russian frontier to the English channel they would not have hesitated for a second.

Would Patton have died in the accident?
Would the attack have taken place before or after he died?

Patton died farting around doing occupation duties. If there was an actual shooting war going on the particular set of circumstances that brought about his death obviously would not have happened.

A lot of this depends upon the exact circumstances of how the war starts.

For me the most likely scenario is that FDR lives longer. After the Allies crossed the Rhine and Geman resistance in the west abruptly collapsed he wanted to amend the Yalta agreements to "as far east as we can get", ideally a line running Stettin~Berlin~Dresden! In the frantic race to grab as much real estate as possible it would be easy for a Wallied column and a Soviet one to collide in a massive mistaken identity fight. Barring that if the Wallies didn't pull back to the Elbe the Soviets would feel betrayed. To someone as paranoid as Stalin there would be only one possible response.

No other American commander, except maybe for Pattons second, Abrams, could have used Americas near useless armor to effect.

The Americans had quite a few talented commanders like Hodges.

As far as "crude" troops from the balkans. I would rather have had them instead of the Romanians that were guarding the German flanks at Stalingrad.
Even the Russian made fun of them.

The Rumanians were actually very good soldiers and tough fighters. The problem was that they had WWI equipment and zero anti tank capability. When the Soviets broke through the Rumanian Third Army the last surviving units fixed bayonets and charged.

The units that the Germans garrisoned the Balkans with were far far worse soldiers, and no better equipped. Junk like Handshar.

Germany was not interested in conquering the "country", they were only interested in moving German civilians into depopulated lands. Sort of a colonization more than an occupation.

Yup. Raise the cities, round up slave workers.

Carpet bombing of almost anything except for Japanese cities was pretty useless.

The carpet bombing in Normandy was very, very effective. It basically destroyed Panzer Lehr from the air, this was probalby the best Panzer unit the Germans had in Normandy.

Would Japan have cut a deal with the allies, let us live and we will fight Russia with with?
That one is so far out that I have no idea, just thought of it.

The Wallies have absolutely no reason to cut such a deal, they have Japan on the ropes and Pearl Harbour to avenge.

New tanks like the Patton were not around until the mid 50's and the Centurion first saw action in the various Arab Isreal wars, were it and the tactics of Isreal dominated Russian tanks.

I was referring to the Pershing, which did reach the ETO in 1945, as did the Centurion.

However, it must be mentioned that no Arab country has ever had an army that could stand against a Western Army.

Despite the fact that they had much, much better tanks with much cooler stats than the Israelis did.

Austin

[joncnunn]

Stallin strikes me as someone who would have continued to keep fighting in WW II even if Moscow had fallen, even in a losing cause, he probably would fight to the death, regardless of how far back he was pushed.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Austin


The Sherman was even less of a match for the Panther, and the Germans still lost didn't they? That's because tank statistics, while cool, are not the primary factor that determines overall combat power.

Yes, an compare how many Panthers were on the western front compared to Shermans?? With odds like these the Allies could have won with Stuarts. The Allies had a 10:1 advantage in tanks after Cobra, they had over 5,000 tanks when they crossed the Rhine. Overy mentions the replacement problem quite well during the Normandy campaign. Most German tanks were PzIVs.

The Red Army was still practising the same forward defense crap in 1942 that they did in 1941. The only reason that the opening acts of Fall Blau did not bag a lot of prisoners is that the Russians had most of their army deployed around Moscow. Between Voronezh and Rostov they were pretty thin on the ground.

Define "most". There were exactly 14 armies between Voronezh and Rostov and over 20 armies in Army Group A & B's area of operations during Fall Blau. Is this too little? There were only 11 forward deployed during Barbarossa. I can't believe you still think that after a pounding like '41 the Soviet wouldn't have leardned something and still stuck with the same stupid tactics? I think not.

Had Fall Blau been aimed at Moscow where the bulk of the Russian forces was, that bulk would have been gutted.

The russians in 1942 were in a much better position to withstand a german assault. The terrain around Moscow is not as forgiving as the endless Ukraininan steppe.

Please, do not make me laugh. Operation Mars was supposed to be the big event of the Russian counteroffensive, and the Germans utterly crushed it. Operation Saturn, which eventually led to Stalingrad was only supposed to be a supplementary operation.

As I said, Mars was launched in worse weather, against GERMAN troops (not rumanian) who had months to prepare defenses and in better defensive terrain.

The only reason Stalingrad happened was because the Germans, thanks to Hitler, comitted two major strategic blunders. They dispersed their forces too much trying to take the Caucaus and Stalingrad at the same time, and they remained fixated on a single axis assault against Stalingrad and neglected their flanks.

I totally agree here.

The Russians themselves never expected the result at Stalingrad that they got, they expected to surround a corps or two at most, not a whole army.

This is not a good excuse to downgrade Saturn. Just look at a map where the two Soviet axis of attack were and honestly tell me if the intention was not to surround as much as 6th Army as they could. What they didn't expect was Hitler not allowing a withdrawl which was what any sane commander would have done.

Absent Hitler the Germans would have most likely inflicted the same ass whupping on Saturn as they did Mars, and as they did to the early Popov offensive aimed at Kharkov.

Ok, the Germans withdraw, and then what? Recapture the city next summer? Mass more forces for Zitadelle? I insist the Germans had no hope of winning.

That industrial core wasn't functioning yet. Moscow was key for two reasons; it is very likely to have provoked a political collapse or crisis, and for the second half of 1941 it was the only functioning munitions centre the Soviets had.

Even France, who had been militarily defeated before losing Paris did not surrender until various days after it did. The Soviets would not have been militarily defeated even if Moscow fell so what makes you think they would have surrendered?

Most of Soviet war making industry was either in German hands or in transit to the Urals post August, the Red Army had to rely upon the factories around Moscow to tide them over till all those factories got moved and set back up again, which is an incredibly difficult and lengthy process. If the Germans take Moscow before the winter hits, the Red Army has to go 4 months with very little replaements or production. That plus the political effects would probably mean the end of the Soviet Union.

Ok, they take Moscow and still, their divisions are so depleted it is doubtful they could have done anything more. The Russians had a huge stock of equipment, bad equipment, i admit, but it still amounts to something. In 1941 the Germans captured more soviet equipment than German industry produced that same year. German problem was reserves whereas the Rusisians always had depth in their defenses even during the battle of Moscow. I advise you to read Seaton and Glantz to see just how depleted the German army was during the last quarter of 1941, and the reserves still available to the Russians.

The Germans lost the war on at least two occasions; they lost it not going for Moscow in 1941, and they lost it not going for Moscow in 1942. In either case they would have dealt the Red Army blows it could not have recovered from.

I think I've pretty much made my point that I disagree.

[Panag]

hi ,

the above post's show one thing that is needed in civ three , logistics , they should be changed , air units should only be able within the range the have , railraods should have a cut back in the movement points old and outdated units can not be airlifted (!) , etc , .....

Firaxis its time for a chat , ....

have a nice day

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I think a simpler way to start is just to include the WEATHER.

Let's face it: many invasions of Russia throughout the ages have failed due to the "Russian winter". Numerous naval expeditions, and indeed invading fleets, have been dashed or crippled by unexpected violent waters and storms. Plagues and famines spring up because a change of a few degrees in the overall temprature (yes, even before global warming).

It's time to incorporate the weather into Civ! Maybe even the seasons!

[Master Zen]

1) Definitely air units should only move depending on their range (would this be too hard to code)

2) Maybe it would be nice to run the game based on yearly (or more) turns, but whenever war erupts, the game suddenly turns into bimonthly or seasonal turns in which weather does have an effect.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by raguil_79
2) Maybe it would be nice to run the game based on yearly (or more) turns, but whenever war erupts, the game suddenly turns into bimonthly or seasonal turns in which weather does have an effect.

Yes, that would be a cool idea. Of course, movement would have to be effected... no knights moving across entire continents in one year!

[Master Zen]

During peacetime, you could have movement based more on "deployment", i.e. you build a unit then choose where its going to stay. Once war erupts the unit would move based on its movement points.

This could also solve the naval movement problem since it's not realistic for naval units to take 10 turns (years) to steam across the world.

I read somewhere that units in Civ should be treated less as individual units and more like military presence. It takes years to move units because in real life it takes years to establish a presence in different places

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I was thinking about that a bit, and I think that's a good way to put it. For example, the mounted warriors of antiquity could probably cross Eurasia - say, Normandy to Siberia - in one year (a small, determined company of them). However, a whole legion of them could not, due to the need for supplies, etc.

I think the system in Civ is pretty accurate, but I think that more detail during wartime would be great.

[Master Zen]

of course, warfare would have to be modelled much more seriously.

For example, you couldn't have your nation get war declared by another nation so far away with no capabilities to hurt each other as often happens in Civ. This would be like Portugal declaring war on Ethiopia...

You could have, say, cut diplomatic ties or something, but warfare should be limited to instances where there can actually be major damage done between the conflicting countries. This would be mostly an AI thing since a peaceful player would not go to war and iterrupt its, say, biannual-turns development to suddenly go to war on a monthly-turn basis when most units will just sit it out.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I disagree. Distant countries declare war on each other all the time, and these are often symbolic wars. The crusades is a fine example of this, so is Vietnam.

[MrBaggins]

those examples aren't exactly glowing successes, though, eh?

[Master Zen]

Yes, but the difference is that those countries in the wars you mentioned had the means to inflict damage on each other.

Name me a war in which distant countries without the means to hurt each other have declared war (and WW2 doesn't count since those 40+ allied countries that weren't the big 3 fought alongside the big 3 if at all)

[Master Zen]

Most civ players do not declare war on a country which it has no means of attacking. It is just useless. But the AI does it frequently, sometimes you're presence just pisses them off. I call these "caravel wars" since at the most a few caravels fight sporadic engagements. Sometimes these wars last dozens of turns and all in all are quite idiotic.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I have to disagree utterly. Sure, those countries could inflict damage on each other, but so can a country far away from you that randomly declares war on you in Civ! I can count a number of games that I gave up on in frustration because some bastards came out of the blue (across some great continent) and took one, or more, of my border cities.

Once again I point to the crusades and Vietnam as examples. Sure, the people launching the war have a hard time winning, and often lose, but they still launch the war anyway! It's idiotic, but it's also lifelike.

Look at our little war in Iraq coming up. Why are we declaring war on them? Preventative war? Whether you feel it's justified or not, it's quite a bit like a powerful Civ attacking you from a long ways away because you are a threat, culturally perhaps, or because you are EASY to attack.

[Master Zen]

yes, but it is a POWERFUL civ attacking you, my original example was Portugal vs. Ethiopia, not USA vs. anyone else.

[TomCB]

Austin and others. Pardon this, but I am going to searching for each thing to respond to and may miss a few things as this thread to just going wild.

German armor lost to the Russians because the Russian armor was almost as good overall and in MUCH larger numbers.
The German armor was far better than the American and only lost because of the Americans VAST numbers.
The Americans own numbers say it took 13 shermans to kill any heavy German tank.
Just saw today that it took more than 300,000 man hours to build 1 tiger tank...ZOUNDS
I don't think you are really considering how pathetic American armor of the day was.
Please also remember that Abrams was instrumental in the designing of the Abrams tank that rule the battle fields today. He pushed for it because he was so sick of seeing so many Americans killed because of sh*tty equipment.

I would have to agree that had Hitler stayed out of the planning and execution, the Germans should have taken Moscow and I think that MAY have compelled Stalin to Sue for peace.
There is some evidence that he sent an envoy to talk peace with Hitler just before Stalingrad.
Hilter say this was weakness and decided to go for the whole thing instead of 3/4.
The border may have been the volga.
Ever play a board game called Third Reich by Avalon Hill?
It has most likley been around longer than most on here have been alive (yes, I am an old fart).
It covers this possibility and Avalon Hill got started making war games for the DOD.

As far as FDR goes, you may not know this but his administration was filled with communists that just loved Russia.
I don't think that they would have done anything but work to appease Russia and that they dominated the weakling Trumans' admin as well.
Lets not forget that Stalin knew that the A bomb was coming soon and that may have detered him as well.

The Russian made fun of the Romanian troops they were so poor. That is bad when 1942-3 Russian troops call you poor.

Logistics could be handled by having supply depots set up like radar towers are now, and they can supply units within so many squares depending on technology/roads/rail/airports/harbors.
How about "supply units" Each would consumed supplying so many units, it can only go from depot to depot and must end it's move on a depot.
Trash the other guys supply depot and watch him "die on the vine".

There were two other times that carpet bombing did more harm than good in the Normandy area too. Not worth thinking it could really help.

Arab armor suffered from two things.
1) It was inferior to the centurion and patterion tanks and the arabs were not well trained in their use.
2) Isreali (spelling) commanders stayed out side the tank so that they could see, arab commanders did not.

Lets not forget, like the W allies, Isreal enjoyed TOTAL air domaniance.
However, they were fighting in a desert, not the forests of Europe against a battle hardened and well trained foe like the American would have been.

I have provided a link to the lend lease, it wasn't all that much equipment, and most of it (80%) was after the war was over.

Civ turns are in years, so weather is not a real factor.
As far as gloable warming (or the lack thereof) lets not go there.....PLEASE.

As far as naval units goes, I increased the movement rate by some as much as a factor of 5. Makes them a units you had better have, if for no other reaon to block entire choke points so stop otehr CIVs from going through.
I also increased the shield cost about the same.
Gives a whole to meaning to the pain of losing that battleship.
This has increased the value of good coastal cities since you have to have ALL of them creating naval vessels all the time due to the time required to get them launched.

As far the game "slowing" down during a war for the warring parties, that would make multi player impossible and would have interesting effects since units are not being replaced at the same rate, but can be lost at the same rate.

As far as redeployment goes, look at modern warfare.
The American and British are moving whole armies half way across the world in 6 months. I don't see railroad or air redeployment being to powerful at all.
If anything, I see the CIV has being too slow.

I do think that the maintenence costs of units should go up a whole hell of allot during war and mobilization.

More later..........

PEACE

[Panag]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Most civ players do not declare war on a country which it has no means of attacking. It is just useless. But the AI does it frequently, sometimes you're presence just pisses them off. I call these "caravel wars" since at the most a few caravels fight sporadic engagements. Sometimes these wars last dozens of turns and all in all are quite idiotic.

hi ,

there is a huge exception on this , .... when a civ builds a special great wonder , when declared war upon it it shall most of the time stop that great wonder and start to build military units for the duration of the war , .......

a great trick to build the wonder yourself , .....

have a nice day

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Master Zen
yes, but it is a POWERFUL civ attacking you, my original example was Portugal vs. Ethiopia, not USA vs. anyone else.

Well look. Plenty of powerless civs declare war on more powerful ones. Look at the crusades once again. I'd hardly say that the crusaders were more powerful than the Caliphates they attacked, and look again, for the most parts the crusades failed. Still, they were prosecuted, because of religious reasons. Similarly, when a civ attacks you just because you're "there", I always imagine them doing so for xenophobia reasons, a VERY strong human impulse and a driving factory in pre-nuclear history.

It would be cool if the game said, "Sire, the [CIV] have launched a crusade against us!" or "The petulant [CIV] do not understand our way of life and vow to punish us!"