Grizx,
Thank you for the comments.
"Ver 1.5 Dutch Harbor I like the addition of Dutch Harbor. I had felt the need for it when playing 1.3.
Ver 1.5 Marianas and Wake Island - Replacing the US cities Marianas (next to the Carolines) and Wake Island with airfields was good. Makes it tougher for the US, and makes it much more likely the US will lose all Philippine cities which is realistic." Grizx
Yes I think these changes increase realism.
"Ver 1.5 South America Venezuela. I would move the city :South Venezuela Area one square diagonally East, rename it Puerto Carrena, and extend the Orinoco river down to it. More accurate geographically." Grizx
It sounds like a good idea.
"Ver 1.5 Retaining City Culture on Capture With this change the US is able to capture Cuidad, Mexico City and Acapulco on turn 1. Without it Acapulco had to wait to turn 2. In one sense, culture retention is not a big issue as we can easily turn it on or off. On our own. On balance I think it is good to have city culture retention on because it helps the AI players. But might be worth putting a couple more Garrisons in Mexican cities to slow down the US. More on AI/ human balance later." Grizx
It only there for one reason: To stop AI from razing cities.
"Ver 1.5 US Continent Would like to see Detroit, St Louis, and Memphis connected by rail. Not a huge deal as workers can do it in the game, but they were connected in 1939. On the Florida cities I can go either way. It is just really annoying to send the workers to connect them when in fact the rail lines existed historically. The counter- argument is that having to build those rail lines slows US development a bit, but right now I would vote for connecting them" Grizx
It sounds OK to me. The whole rail-issue is a problem though.
I mean railroads give mobility that is unrealistic. Its a problem within
the game-engine that never probably can be solved.
"Ver 1.5 Destroyers - I like the addition of 1939 and 1941 destroyers with the different stats. On the graphics, however, strongly urge you to use the Fletcher DD graphics available on the CGD Forum. The Fletcher graphics just look a lot better than the Akuzuki graphics you used. The Fletcher class was not introduced until 1942, but the late 1930s US Destroyer classes (Mahan 1936, Somers 1938, Gridley 1937, Bagley 1937, Sims 1939, Benham 1939, Benson DD 1940, Bristol DD 1941) all had two forward gun turrets and two stacks like the Fletchers.. At the graphics resolution in the game they would be virtually indistinguishable from the Fletchers. Same goes for the Sumner 1944 and Gearing 1945 destroyer classes.
The Fletcher graphics make a good looking destroyer for all navies for the entire war, plus it ended up being THE US destroyer of WWII.. If you get the urge, I would add 1944 and 1945 destroyer upgrades, changing only the AA capabilities/stats. The main upgrade in the Fletcher and subsequent WWII US destroyer classes was increased AA." Grizx
A good idea for the next graphic expansion.
I will consider it.
"Ver 1.5 S-Boats (German) I tend to see the addition of S-boats as a distraction that does not really help the game. I think that at least their bombardment stat is way too high." Grizx
Within this game-engine, the question is whether the S-boats are
relevant or not. Its not sure they will be present in 1.6. I will read the
feedback.
"Ver 1.5 U-Boats In version 1.3 I did not see the U-boats as overpowered. I think they should keep the blitz and should not be reduced in power or effectiveness.. " Grizx
Notes have been taken.
"Ver 1.5 Arctic Ocean - I looked carefully at what you did with landmark terrain and ice barriers to simulate arctic sea ice. The problem is that the game engine does not seem to allow coast terrain to be designated as landmark terrain. If that were possible the landmark terrain as ice would work ok. Perhaps in Civ 4 we will be able to add different types of terrain.
After giving it a lot of thought I still think the best, simplest and least disruptive option is to extend arctic tundra terrain up to the northern map edge in two places: (1) Halfway across Siberia at the existing northern extension of the land and (2) halfway between Aklavik and Wager Bay. This is simple and decisive, It stops Artic circumnavigation. It will hardly be noticed at all in game play, and it leaves room for naval operations around the Bering Straight and around Murmansk/Archangel." Grizx
OK, I will consider it.
"Suggestions for New Units Graphics for these units are available on the CGD Forum
US PBY5 for recon
Germany - Condor recon and light naval bombing
US Montana class BB
US Liberty ship or LST instead of the existing transport blob thingy. (The liberty ship looks pretty good)" Grizx
I think its good suggestions. I will probably include them.
"Ver 1.5 Turkish Navy - In terms of a global WWII scenario, the Turkish navy was just not a player. Same for the Thai navy. Might consider just removing those navies and thereby eliminate some of the distracting, sub-induced declarations of war. Turkey was, if anything a land power. Might consider beefing up the garrisons in Turkish cities to make Turkey more difficult to capture" Grizx
Here I do not agree. In such a case I have to remove all naval
forces that belong to minor powers. That would take away much flavour.
One should also remember that all declarations of war from minor powers on major powers are not related to subs..
In my personal mod minor powers often declare war without any
logical reasons.
"Ver 1.5 Iran/Persia. Not so sure about eliminating Iran/Persia and giving it to the Brits. Persia acted as something of a buffer between Russia and Britain in the Middle East in 1.3. I think also the elimination of the Persian buffer reinforces the tendency of the Russian AI not to fight Germany but instead to fight Britain." Grizx
Should it not work, I will change it back.
"Ver 1.5 Thailand - Might consider limiting Thailand to just garrison units. Eliminate the navy. There has to be a balance between realism and playability. Thailand was just not a significant or capable WWII military power and a WWIII global scenario should reflect this. Garrison units, even strong garrison units ok. But combat maneuver units and a navy which did not register on the WWII cobat scale - no. Again, this may help eliminate weird declarations of war while still providing somewhat realistic resistance to invasion" Grizx
Eliminate the navy: No. Garrison units: Maybe.
On game-balance:
Should I develop special AI-related scenarios it would take away all
time I can allocate to scenario-creatio.
I repeat what I have said before: the multiplayer version should
be a good alternative for those players that think AI is
no challenge.
On the final comment:
Notes have been taken.
Thank you for your comments. They are very interesting.
Welcome back.
Rocoteh
Thank you for the comments.
"Ver 1.5 Dutch Harbor I like the addition of Dutch Harbor. I had felt the need for it when playing 1.3.
Ver 1.5 Marianas and Wake Island - Replacing the US cities Marianas (next to the Carolines) and Wake Island with airfields was good. Makes it tougher for the US, and makes it much more likely the US will lose all Philippine cities which is realistic." Grizx
Yes I think these changes increase realism.
"Ver 1.5 South America Venezuela. I would move the city :South Venezuela Area one square diagonally East, rename it Puerto Carrena, and extend the Orinoco river down to it. More accurate geographically." Grizx
It sounds like a good idea.
"Ver 1.5 Retaining City Culture on Capture With this change the US is able to capture Cuidad, Mexico City and Acapulco on turn 1. Without it Acapulco had to wait to turn 2. In one sense, culture retention is not a big issue as we can easily turn it on or off. On our own. On balance I think it is good to have city culture retention on because it helps the AI players. But might be worth putting a couple more Garrisons in Mexican cities to slow down the US. More on AI/ human balance later." Grizx
It only there for one reason: To stop AI from razing cities.
"Ver 1.5 US Continent Would like to see Detroit, St Louis, and Memphis connected by rail. Not a huge deal as workers can do it in the game, but they were connected in 1939. On the Florida cities I can go either way. It is just really annoying to send the workers to connect them when in fact the rail lines existed historically. The counter- argument is that having to build those rail lines slows US development a bit, but right now I would vote for connecting them" Grizx
It sounds OK to me. The whole rail-issue is a problem though.
I mean railroads give mobility that is unrealistic. Its a problem within
the game-engine that never probably can be solved.
"Ver 1.5 Destroyers - I like the addition of 1939 and 1941 destroyers with the different stats. On the graphics, however, strongly urge you to use the Fletcher DD graphics available on the CGD Forum. The Fletcher graphics just look a lot better than the Akuzuki graphics you used. The Fletcher class was not introduced until 1942, but the late 1930s US Destroyer classes (Mahan 1936, Somers 1938, Gridley 1937, Bagley 1937, Sims 1939, Benham 1939, Benson DD 1940, Bristol DD 1941) all had two forward gun turrets and two stacks like the Fletchers.. At the graphics resolution in the game they would be virtually indistinguishable from the Fletchers. Same goes for the Sumner 1944 and Gearing 1945 destroyer classes.
The Fletcher graphics make a good looking destroyer for all navies for the entire war, plus it ended up being THE US destroyer of WWII.. If you get the urge, I would add 1944 and 1945 destroyer upgrades, changing only the AA capabilities/stats. The main upgrade in the Fletcher and subsequent WWII US destroyer classes was increased AA." Grizx
A good idea for the next graphic expansion.
I will consider it.
"Ver 1.5 S-Boats (German) I tend to see the addition of S-boats as a distraction that does not really help the game. I think that at least their bombardment stat is way too high." Grizx
Within this game-engine, the question is whether the S-boats are
relevant or not. Its not sure they will be present in 1.6. I will read the
feedback.
"Ver 1.5 U-Boats In version 1.3 I did not see the U-boats as overpowered. I think they should keep the blitz and should not be reduced in power or effectiveness.. " Grizx
Notes have been taken.
"Ver 1.5 Arctic Ocean - I looked carefully at what you did with landmark terrain and ice barriers to simulate arctic sea ice. The problem is that the game engine does not seem to allow coast terrain to be designated as landmark terrain. If that were possible the landmark terrain as ice would work ok. Perhaps in Civ 4 we will be able to add different types of terrain.
After giving it a lot of thought I still think the best, simplest and least disruptive option is to extend arctic tundra terrain up to the northern map edge in two places: (1) Halfway across Siberia at the existing northern extension of the land and (2) halfway between Aklavik and Wager Bay. This is simple and decisive, It stops Artic circumnavigation. It will hardly be noticed at all in game play, and it leaves room for naval operations around the Bering Straight and around Murmansk/Archangel." Grizx
OK, I will consider it.
"Suggestions for New Units Graphics for these units are available on the CGD Forum
US PBY5 for recon
Germany - Condor recon and light naval bombing
US Montana class BB
US Liberty ship or LST instead of the existing transport blob thingy. (The liberty ship looks pretty good)" Grizx
I think its good suggestions. I will probably include them.
"Ver 1.5 Turkish Navy - In terms of a global WWII scenario, the Turkish navy was just not a player. Same for the Thai navy. Might consider just removing those navies and thereby eliminate some of the distracting, sub-induced declarations of war. Turkey was, if anything a land power. Might consider beefing up the garrisons in Turkish cities to make Turkey more difficult to capture" Grizx
Here I do not agree. In such a case I have to remove all naval
forces that belong to minor powers. That would take away much flavour.
One should also remember that all declarations of war from minor powers on major powers are not related to subs..
In my personal mod minor powers often declare war without any
logical reasons.
"Ver 1.5 Iran/Persia. Not so sure about eliminating Iran/Persia and giving it to the Brits. Persia acted as something of a buffer between Russia and Britain in the Middle East in 1.3. I think also the elimination of the Persian buffer reinforces the tendency of the Russian AI not to fight Germany but instead to fight Britain." Grizx
Should it not work, I will change it back.
"Ver 1.5 Thailand - Might consider limiting Thailand to just garrison units. Eliminate the navy. There has to be a balance between realism and playability. Thailand was just not a significant or capable WWII military power and a WWIII global scenario should reflect this. Garrison units, even strong garrison units ok. But combat maneuver units and a navy which did not register on the WWII cobat scale - no. Again, this may help eliminate weird declarations of war while still providing somewhat realistic resistance to invasion" Grizx
Eliminate the navy: No. Garrison units: Maybe.
On game-balance:
Should I develop special AI-related scenarios it would take away all
time I can allocate to scenario-creatio.
I repeat what I have said before: the multiplayer version should
be a good alternative for those players that think AI is
no challenge.
On the final comment:
Notes have been taken.
Thank you for your comments. They are very interesting.
Welcome back.
Rocoteh
I will squish them out of there eventually, but I have a sizeable French army threatening Stuttgart. I also love the new graphic for the Somua, Rocoteh, scared the hell out of me when they started attacking me on Turn 1! 
Also, Rocoteh added those civs you don't like because the people who have been playing this scenario asked for it, me among them. Make sure you have the right target before you fire, please. I understand about the long load times being a pain though, and I don't have a super-fast computer. I would suggest trying the save games that Rocoteh has posted in the first 11 posts of this thread, but from the tone of your post I doubt you will even read this. To each his own. 
