[SCENARIO] WWII Storm Over the Pacific!

[Moff Jerjerrod]

And a damn fine human being as well.

I really miss El_Justo. At one point during the early days of Civ III I had his phone number. We've talked quite a few times about various things, especially C3C. He really is a good guy but has somehow disappeared off the planet. I've tried PM'ing him here but no response. I also no longer have his phone number.

I hope he's all right.

 

[timerover51]

I really miss El_Justo. At one point during the early days of Civ III I had his phone number. We've talked quite a few times about various things, especially C3C. He really is a good guy but has somehow disappeared off the planet. I've tried PM'ing him here but no response. I also no longer have his phone number.

I hope he's all right.

That would be worth knowing.

 

[timerover51]

I would be very interested in knowing the following:

When did he come up with his unit combat value? The Japanese have a bomber with a range of 125, verses the U.S. B-36 with a range of 52.

Where did he come up with his data on the date various units were introduced?

Where did he find the information for his various Orders of Battle?

Why is the U.S. West Coast essentially defenseless in May of 1942?

That is a few of the questions that I would like to try and get answers.

Edit Note: The Japanee G10N Fugaku Heavy Bomber has both a range of 125 listed, as well as having the Infinite Bombard Range active. It is also 80% of the B-36, at 800 Shields verses 999 for the B-36. I am extremely curious about this comparison.

 

[timerover51]

Let me toss a few more questions out there.

Why does the Fletcher-class destroyer, carrying five 5 inch/38 caliber guns, have an Attack rating of 22, a Defense rating of 14, and a Bombardment rating of 18, while a Brooklyn-class light cruiser, with fifteen 6 inch/47 caliber and eight 5 inch/25 caliber guns have an Attack rating of 16, a Defense rating of 12, and a Bombardment rating of 12? The destroyer had an approximate displacement of 2100 tons, while the cruiser had a displacement of 10,000 tons.

The B-17 has a bombardment rating of 18, and normally carried a load of 4,000 pounds. The B-29 has a bombardment rating of 18, with a higher rate of fire of 5 compared to 3. The B-29 could carry 12,000 pounds of bombs for 1600 miles, with a maximum load of 20,000 pounds. The B-36 has a bombardment rating of 18, with a rate of fire of 6. The B-36 could carry 10,000 pounds of bombs for 3600 miles, and had a maximum load of 72,000 pounds. After the war, it test dropped a 44,000 pound bomb. By the way, the medium bombers B-25 and B-26 both have a higher bombardment rating than the B-17. Their maximum load was 3,000 pounds.

The Yorktown-class, the Wasp, the Essex-class, and the Midway-class fleet carriers all can carry 9 aircraft. The Independence-class light carriers can carry 4 aircraft. The Bogue-class and the Casablanca-class escort carriers can carry 9 aircraft. The Escort Carrier air groups were smaller than the light carriers in reality. Typically they carried 21 aircraft, while the lights carried 33.

Then there are the Japanese Zeros with a range comparable or greater than that of the B-17. Some of the aircraft ranges are truly bizarre.

The Japanese I-400 class submarines were designed to carry 3 attack float planes for strikes against the U.S., and carried a single 140mm/5.5 inch deck gun. They are not given any aircraft, but do have a bombardment rating of 18. See comments above.

 

[Civinator]

And a damn fine human being as well.

This is very true and it is a pity, that there is no more contact to El Justo left. El Justo, I wish you all the best, old friend.

I would be very interested in knowing the following:

When did he come up with his unit combat value? The Japanese have a bomber with a range of 125, verses the U.S. B-36 with a range of 52.

Where did he come up with his data on the date various units were introduced?

Where did he find the information for his various Orders of Battle?

Why is the U.S. West Coast essentially defenseless in May of 1942?

That is a few of the questions that I would like to try and get answers.

Edit Note: The Japanee G10N Fugaku Heavy Bomber has both a range of 125 listed, as well as having the Infinite Bombard Range active. It is also 80% of the B-36, at 800 Shields verses 999 for the B-36. I am extremely curious about this comparison.

I think these questions can only really be answered by El Justo himself. Especially setting the range for bombers in Civ 3 is somewhat problematic. The range for them is dependent to the mass of bombs that are loaded into them. Additionally the information about the range of bombers differ between ferry range and combat range (with full load ?) and frequently there is no hint if it is the ferry range or the combat range in those resources. The ferry range is set by the programming of Civ 3, that this is 6 x the set of the normal range. It should also be taken into consideration, that these settings were done with very aged sources. It also makes a difference, if such a bomber did fly in reality (like the B-36), or if that information is only based on speculations (like the G10N Fugaku).

For me the posted scenario is a prototype (especially about the unit stats) that presents a scenario with working scenario mechanisms, created in the first period of Covid 19, that El Justo never had the time to work on any longer.

El Justo posted spreadsheets about the SOP unit stats (and the much better AoI unit stats) here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/spreadsheets.22659/

 

[Vuldacon]

Yes El Justo is a Very Good Guy and we interacted a great deal in the past, especially with AOI.

Although I basically only worked on the Graphics, I can say he is a very knowledgeable Historian.

Real Life intervened in the past and no doubt has taken over again.

No communication by Internet or Phone.
I too hope he is OK.

 

[timerover51]

This is very true and it is a pity, that there is no more contact to El Justo left. El Justo, I wish you all the best, old friend.



I think these questions can only really be answered by El Justo himself. Especially setting the range for bombers in Civ 3 is somewhat problematic. The range for them is dependent to the mass of bombs that are loaded into them. Additionally the information about the range of bombers differ between ferry range and combat range (with full load ?) and frequently there is no hint if it is the ferry range or the combat range in those resources. The ferry range is set by the programming of Civ 3, that this is 6 x the set of the normal range. It should also be taken into consideration, that these settings were done with very aged sources. It also makes a difference, if such a bomber did fly in reality (like the B-36), or if that information is only based on speculations (like the G10N Fugaku).

If you need detailed data on aircraft performance in World War 2, I have that for the U.S., the British, the Germans, and the Japanese that I can send you via an email. I have a lot of that data readily available if you want it. As a quick rule of thumb, operational radius with standard combat load may be taken as between 1/3 and 3/8 of the maximum range. That ferry range built into the game is insane.

For me the posted scenario is a prototype (especially about the unit stats) that presents a scenario with working scenario mechanisms, created in the first period of Covid 19, that El Justo never had the time to work on any longer.

El Justo posted spreadsheets about the SOP unit stats (and the much better AoI unit stats) here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/spreadsheets.22659/

The only usable information in that file that I can access is the Japanese and U.S. naval ships data. I will comment more on that later.

 

[timerover51]

Attached is a sample file of the data that I have, and have had for quite a while.

 

[timerover51]

First, I have sent a private message to El Justo informing him that I am working on a major modification to his scenario. As he has not been on the forum since July of 2020, I am not sure about receiving a response.

Next, to all players who have played this scenario, has anyone finished the game with a win or loss?

Lastly, at Civinator, do you have a SAV that you could post so that I can see better how the game works? I am not sure about what the Capitalization flag does.

I assume that the plethora of buildings is an attempt to control unit spam. You first have to research the appropriate technology, then build the required building, then wait while the unit is initially auto-produced, and wait for successive production. Then you have to move the unit to where it can be used. All of this takes time. A large number of the buildings apparently are being used to increase the production rate to compensation for the very low shield production from the territory surrounding a city. Food requirements for workers have been reduced, presumably to allow more workers for shield production. All or most cities appear to be starting with 2 or 4 as their population, despite the scenario starting as of the first week in May of 1942. Are all of these points valid?

 

[Civinator]

Lastly, at Civinator, do you have a SAV that you could post so that I can see better how the game works? I am not sure about what the Capitalization flag does.

In the C3C mainfolder there is a HTML file named Civ3conquestsEdit, marked with a yellow question mark. This file explains many functions of the Firaxis editor by clicking at it. Per example here you can see the explanation for the editor flag "Capitalization":

If you want to see information about the rate of converting shields into gold, you you only have to click at the General Settings Page (marked in the screenshot by a blue arrow).

Unfortunately I don´t have any save files about games with that scenario and I have never played that scenario to the end, as I always had the impression, that this is a very early version, showing that this scenario is running, but a version with corrected stats (and may be the corrected settings to stop the massive land-torpedoing by submarines) has to follow.

 

[Civinator]

As a quick rule of thumb, operational radius with standard combat load may be taken as between 1/3 and 3/8 of the maximum range.

That is an interesting information.

Nevertheless the setting of the range of an aircraft in my eyes is always problematic, as no Civ 3 maps with exact scales are existing and therefore all a modder can do is to set the estimations be plausible for the player, meaning the relations in range (and also in other settings) of units should be in adequate proportions.

For the stats of aircraft in the scenario SOE I started with the stats in the famous scenario WW2 Global (with the permission of Rocoteh) and compared them with the stats of the Gary Grigsby games "War in Russia" and "Western Front" to find parallels in the proportions of the stats of the different units and to project these proportions to the unit stats of that scenario.

In one of my first posts in this thread I showed, that in this scenario at present there are even much bigger disharmonies between unit stats, per example between Japanese destroyers and Japanese cruisers. I cannot comprehend, why the bombardment of a Japanese destroyer is much more powerful (bomb, RoF) than that of a Japanese heavy cruiser, especially when it is a bombardment of land terrain (and for sea battles the Japanese cruisers mostly were additionally equipped with the same powerful long range torpedoes).

 

[timerover51]

In the C3C mainfolder there is a HTML file named Civ3conquestsEdit, marked with a yellow question mark. This file explains many functions of the Firaxis editor by clicking at it. Per example here you can see the explanation for the editor flag "Capitalization":

If you want to see information about the rate of converting shields into gold, you you only have to click at the General Settings Page (marked in the screenshot by a blue arrow).

Unfortunately I don´t have any save files about games with that scenario and I have never played that scenario to the end, as I always had the impression, that this is a very early version, showing that this scenario is running, but a version with corrected stats (and may be the corrected settings to stop the massive land-torpedoing by submarines) has to follow.

Thank you for the information on capitalization. I understand about the Shields to Gold conversion in the General Settings. I normally do not touch that particular setting.

That is an interesting information.

Nevertheless the setting of the range of an aircraft in my eyes is always problematic, as no Civ 3 maps with exact scales are existing and therefore all a modder can do is to set the estimations be plausible for the player, meaning the relations in range (and also in other settings) of units should be in adequate proportions.

I generally go with proportionate ranges based on the military information that I have, along with the operational planning data that I have. On an historical map, such as the Pacific, I can gauge ranges based on what actually took place, such as the B-29 raids from Tinian to Tokyo. Using that, I can come up with proportionate ranges. I understand that just about every map is going to have a different scale for distances.

For the stats of aircraft in the scenario SOE I started with the stats in the famous scenario WW2 Global (with the permission of Rocoteh) and compared them with the stats of the Gary Grigsby games "War in Russia" and "Western Front" to find parallels in the proportions of the stats of the different units and to project these proportions to the unit stats of that scenario.

In one of my first posts in this thread I showed, that in this scenario at present there are even much bigger disharmonies between unit stats, per example between Japanese destroyers and Japanese cruisers. I cannot comprehend, why the bombardment of a Japanese destroyer is much more powerful (bomb, RoF) than that of a Japanese heavy cruiser, especially when it is a bombardment of land terrain (and for sea battles the Japanese cruisers mostly were additionally equipped with the same powerful long range torpedoes).

The combat stats are really messed up when it comes to ship combat abilities. I suspect that the bombardment data for the Japanese destroyers is based on the desire to have a destroyer sink a battleship with a single attack of one destroyer. That would explain the high bombardment value. However, the surface attack data is also messed up as there are Japanese destroyers with a far higher surface attack than a heavy cruiser.

There are some other problems with respect to ships, such as not being able to build them, as no building for auto-production has been included. Then there are the ships that either would not be in the Pacific at the time, or ships that have already been sunk prior to May of 1942. The inclusion of the French battleship Richelieu is really bizarre, as that ship was repairing damage in Dakar, West Africa from a British attack on it in July of 1940. The French would have been shooting at the British, not sailing with them.

 

[timerover51]

The frustrating thing about this scenario is that it has the potential to be very good, if finished. There are all of these lovely units in it, that I have been wanting to use for ages in a Pacific War game, with all of the distinctions between the various ships, ground units, and aircraft. I just am not that good at trying to add units, but this has them, along with all of the buildings to work with.

 

[Civinator]

The frustrating thing about this scenario is that it has the potential to be very good, if finished. There are all of these lovely units in it, that I have been wanting to use for ages in a Pacific War game, with all of the distinctions between the various ships, ground units, and aircraft. I just am not that good at trying to add units, but this has them, along with all of the buildings to work with.

May be in a first step try to find better harmonizing unit stats, especially with those ships. At present I still don´t have the time to fiddle with those unit stats. In view of the land bombardment, it can be a good idea to neglect the torpedo weaponry for surface ships. If this is done, I can help by fixing the submarine land-torpedo issue.

 

[timerover51]

May be in a first step try to find better harmonizing unit stats, especially with those ships. At present I still don´t have the time to fiddle with those unit stats. In view of the land bombardment, it can be a good idea to neglect the torpedo weaponry for surface ships. If this is done, I can help by fixing the submarine land-torpedo issue.

I agree that the first step will be to harmonize the units stats, particularly the ships, followed by the aircraft. Then looking at what is being auto-produced in terms of ships and aircraft. In looking at the scenario, it appears that El Justo came up with a way to limit the number of units being auto-produced. Is this possible? I have data for every combat ship built in World War 2 along with those ships from World War 1 and prior still in use. I think that the scenario is auto-producing units that were no longer being built, and were being used for other purposes.

Whatever help you can provide will be greatly appreciated. Feel free to use anything I put up in your CCM mod.

 

[Civinator]

In looking at the scenario, it appears that El Justo came up with a way to limit the number of units being auto-produced. Is this possible?

Yes, this is possible. In the CCM mod this method is used massively for having some "heavy" units on the map in addition to the normal units (per example some Tiger tanks in addition to the normal produced Pz IIIs) and in SOE I set the battleships to be autoproduced with their correct names appearing in the correct date on the map.

You can see the buildings, intervals and autoproduced units in the Firaxis editor by the settings marked with a red box. For the autoproduction the building must have access to the needed resources for the building (not the autoproduced units!).

 

[jlvfr]

Japanese bombers... omg so OP... In the early game, (playing with UK) I've spent some 50+ turns watching Bettys killing Hurricane I and Martlet II literally in droves. I think I've so far lost 20+ and killed 2-3 bombers...

(also... any idea how/if we get lend lease here?)

 

[timerover51]

Japanese bombers... omg so OP... In the early game, (playing with UK) I've spent some 50+ turns watching Bettys killing Hurricane I and Martlet II literally in droves. I think I've so far lost 20+ and killed 2-3 bombers...

(also... any idea how/if we get lend lease here?)

All I can say is that Civinator and I are working on it. I understand very well that the combat stats need to be changed, A LOT. See my thread on hard military data for more information on the aircraft. The Japanese nickname for the Betty was "one shot lighter" for going down in flames so fast. It basically was a flying fuel tank.

Basically, the scenario is in the words of Civinator "a very early version". At lot of buildings for auto-production are missing, and the tech tree definitely needs work. The British were getting Martletts aka Wildcats from the US in 1940 for carrier operations. They were also using Sea Hurricanes and Seafires, a naval version of the Spitfire, as well.

 

[timerover51]

Japanese bombers... omg so OP... In the early game, (playing with UK) I've spent some 50+ turns watching Bettys killing Hurricane I and Martlet II literally in droves. I think I've so far lost 20+ and killed 2-3 bombers...

(also... any idea how/if we get lend lease here?)

What country are you playing, and would you mind posting a Sav so that I can take a look at it? I have been poking around with New Zealand, but that is not close to any combat.

 

[jlvfr]

What country are you playing, and would you mind posting a Sav so that I can take a look at it? I have been poking around with New Zealand, but that is not close to any combat.

Sorry, allready deleted. I was playing with Great Britain, that starts in India. The bombers would be doing bomb runs, I try to intercept with Hurricane I and Martlet II and these die in droves... it's like trying to intercept B-17s with WWI biplanes...