[BtS MOD] Wolfshanze 1850-1920 Enhancement Mod v2.0

[Wolfshanze]

General Matt's suggestion is very good, they wont autokill a transport, but a few of them will kill your transports making them very very dangerous.

That is a good idea...

I'll look into that.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Okay... finally got some more models to stick in the mod... besides the Mikasa I'll be beautifying the Austrians... added new Musketman and Grenadier (along with Rifleman in background)...

Now the Austrians are really coming into their own!

 

[Xenomorph]

On the Sub thing, how about using the mechanic that the Cavalry uses when attacking stacks in addition to the Withdrawal. If a Sub survives and attack (Wins or withdraws) it damages the transports in the stack..

I second this suggestion. Better than mine.

 

[Tlalynet]

Ive merged your mod to add Canada now. I hope I wont have to re-merge with later releses, I doubt it though. Modular Mod loading rocks!

 

[Wolfshanze]

Okay... here's what I've done with subs... see what you think:

1) All subs (WWII, Attack & Boomer):
Raised withdrawal odds
From 50% to 60% for WWII Sub
From 50% to 70% for Attack & Boomer Subs

2) For WWII & Attack Subs (but NOT Boomer):
+20% vs transports
Flank attack vs Paddle Steamers & Transports*


*This allows Subs to damage and even destroy transports "hiding" behind escorting vessels in convoy... like knights vs catapults, you can attack the top defender (a warship) and damage/destroy one or more transports in the stack.


I have done the above changes and tested them in-game... they work exactly as advertised... I'm happy with the changes and think this makes subs a valuable commodity again.

I only have ONE question to you guys... should I apply the 2nd change to Boomer/Missile subs as well, or only leave the 2nd change to WWII and Attack subs?

 

[Pendragon65]

Hi Wolf option 2. Boomers are strategic assets not tactical, just my humble opion leave it as it is it looks fine. Cheers

 

[Wodan]

Agree with Pendragon... that jumped out at me before I read his post.

Also, note that this diminishes the value of Flanking II for the nuclear age subs. 70+20+20 = last 10 is wasted.

Regarding retreat... would be nice if we could give it defensive withdrawal. I know that's probably impossible.

Re: flank attack. What's the rationale why a sub couldn't target, say, an AC? Seems to me that whatever the sub wants to target, it could do so. Except perhaps wooden hull ships, that might be tough, they're so small and have little radar return.

Re: targeting transports. On hindsight I'm not sure this is a good idea. I think perhaps the Firaxis designers specifically chose not to do this, because it made it too easy to circumvent the already weak naval combat theatre.

So, I guess, big picture question: is it desirable that the player be able to build a couple of subs and take down an AIs invading stack, killing all the transports and as many as 50+ land troops?

Wodan

 

[Wolfshanze]

Re: flank attack. What's the rationale why a sub couldn't target, say, an AC? Seems to me that whatever the sub wants to target, it could do so.

What's an "AC"? Or did you mean "CV"? I dunno Wodan... I suppose it's the same rationale as saying if a knight could get around the pikeman and attack the catapults, why couldn't the knight also attack archers or settlers or anything else in the ground stack instead of just the catapults! Should we get rid of Mounted unit flank attacks for the same reason as the sub flank attacks? I simply chose a logical thing a sub would bee-line too in the traditional sense... kinda like cavalry taking-out cannons and what-not.

Except perhaps wooden hull ships, that might be tough, they're so small and have little radar return.

Don't forget Galleons put-out awful passive sonar returns without any propellors! Well, yeah... which is why I gave the flank attack to Steamers and Transports, but not to Galleons... plus if you have subs and your opponent has Galleons, your enemy has a lot more to worry about then just your subs.

Re: targeting transports. On hindsight I'm not sure this is a good idea. I think perhaps the Firaxis designers specifically chose not to do this, because it made it too easy to circumvent the already weak naval combat theatre.

I think perhaps the Firaxis designers didn't do this, because the thought never even crossed their minds... which is probably why it's called "flank attack" and not "underwater attack" or "surprise attack" or something like that. I honestly think the thought never occured to them... just like it never occured to any of us until just recently.

Every single rule or lack-there-of in the game isnt' always a deliberate choice by Firaxis. It's like saying the lack of naval progression from frigates to battleships was a deliberate and intentional choice... I think that's an illogical assumption... I think Firaxis either didn't think about it, didn't know about it, simply ignored it, or didn't care.

The "weak naval combat theatre" responsibility lays solely at the feet of Firaxis... they're the ones who made it weak... so the last people I'm going to consider as the final word on how the naval system should work is Firaxis and their default decisions.

So, I guess, big picture question: is it desirable that the player be able to build a couple of subs and take down an AIs invading stack, killing all the transports and as many as 50+ land troops?

Well, now this is your best point... and a sound question. Here's my thoughts.

It took THREE SUBS in three attacks on the same turn, attacking three ironclads protecting three paddle steamers to get enough collateral damage to actually sink the steamers without attacking them directly. The better the escort and the better the transport, the more the attacking sub player needs to bring to the table... it took more subs attacking a stack of Protected Cruisers and Transports to get similar results.

Let's also not forget surface vessels like a Dreadnought or Battleship are now likely to have "Fire Control" and able to attack multiple times in a single turn... a Battleship let-loose on a loosely guarded convoy can do the same or worse in a single turn to a stack of ships.

I personally don't see this as being anything close to a gamebreaker or a cheat of any kind. An enemy approaching with a convoy of transports would require a roughly equal-size force of enemy subs in it's way to stop it in a single turn. How often does an enemy transport force sneak-in with only a turn's notice (or no notice at all?). If you've got 4 or 5 subs all within a single turn's move and attack, good for you... you deserve to sink his stack in one turn... but how many folks are going to have more then one or two subs in the vicinity? You're probably still better off with one large battleship (with fire control) then two or three subs in the area.

The main purpose of this was just to give more meaning/purpose to subs, and give them a little more "bite" then what they normally have. For the cost and tech requirements, the surface ships are usually faster/stronger then the sub, so this is more to even the plate a little then to make the sub all-powerful and game-breaking.

That's my take on it anyways... maybe I'm wrong... maybe this ruins play balance... I don't think so, but I'm certainly open to opinions.

As for option #2, yeah, I think I will leave it only for WWII and Attack subs (Boomers stay strategic, not tactical).

 

[Xenomorph]

Re: targeting transports. On hindsight I'm not sure this is a good idea. I think perhaps the Firaxis designers specifically chose not to do this, because it made it too easy to circumvent the already weak naval combat theatre.

So, I guess, big picture question: is it desirable that the player be able to build a couple of subs and take down an AIs invading stack, killing all the transports and as many as 50+ land troops?

This makes a case for airships that can be station on ships, and perhaps even for ASW helicopters. In any event, it puts higher priority on see and attacking the sub first, like you would want to do in real life.
Perhaps my first idea was better, but that would require python or even SDK changes.

 

[Tlalynet]

I suggested 70% earlier because Flanking 1 only grants 10%, Flaning 2 is 20%, so it's 100% in the end, I like how Wolf did it with 60% for subs and 70% for modren subs.

I would like it considered that allowing subs to flank attack will add more to the theater instead of taking away. If your'e stack of death gets hit by half a dozen flank II modren subs your transports are toast, so you cant really stack of death. You will have to send foreward subs or destroyers in advance of youre transports, possibly fan your transports out over several tiles behind a convoy. The 30 ships on one tile effect will be a liability instead of the only vialble strategy.
The AI wont know this, but the AI always sneak attacks from sea and lands its units anyway, and the AI doesent know how too re-orginize catapults for flanking. The AI DOES know how to use the flanking attack, and it Does build subs, so this will be a threat to be aware of.

Defensive withrdaw is availible in Fall from Heaven and you could probably grab it from the coding. But I thouht that the sub would be vulnerable on withdawl and thats when you would kill them, anyway, units with 100% retreat and defensive withdraw can only be killed in cities (which a sub wouldnt be defending anyway) {Fall From Heaven Loki unit}

I look foreward to the next update.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Okay... I'm running out of ideas and models (I don't expect any new models I desire in the immediate future unless I'm surprised).

I'm considering releasing v2.64 with the changes to subs, and new models, including the Mikasa and Austrian Musketman and Grenadier... this would be fully compatible with anyone's previous saved and on-going games... so you get the benefit without having to start-over from scratch.

My only other thought is adding Poland as a civ to the mod (realized I don't have to drop any civs to do so, I can add them straight-up) and also giving Austria a new UU to replace the HRE Landskneght... probably a Jäger Rifleman. I believe adding Poland (and it's UU) along with changing Austria's UU will require a bump-up to v2.7 and wreck any saved-game compatability... I may delay doing that for a bit, but it's in the future plans.

 

[arstal]

Weird idea I'd like to suggest.

Since Germany is considered one of the weaker civs change their UB to the Rathaus.

Give Austria a Coffee House as a UB, replaces Grocer, gives +1 culture, +1 happy in addition to other benefits.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Weird idea I'd like to suggest.

Since Germany is considered one of the weaker civs change their UB to the Rathaus.

Give Austria a Coffee House as a UB, replaces Grocer, gives +1 culture, +1 happy in addition to other benefits.

That's something to think about... the assembly plant is pretty much nothing special at all... really no differant then the default factory... either that, or maybe actually make the assembly plant do something special.

 

[Wodan]

What's an "AC"? Or did you mean "CV"?

Yes, CV.

I dunno Wodan... I suppose it's the same rationale as saying if a knight could get around the pikeman and attack the catapults, why couldn't the knight also attack archers or settlers or anything else in the ground stack instead of just the catapults!

Yes, you're right. So, you can stick with Firaxis' decision (which doesn't make any sense), or you can change it so it better reflects the reality of naval combat.

Every single rule or lack-there-of in the game isnt' always a deliberate choice by Firaxis.

Fine, and agreed.

Well, now this is your best point... and a sound question. Here's my thoughts.

It took THREE SUBS in three attacks on the same turn, attacking three ironclads protecting three paddle steamers to get enough collateral damage to actually sink the steamers without attacking them directly. The better the escort and the better the transport, the more the attacking sub player needs to bring to the table... it took more subs attacking a stack of Protected Cruisers and Transports to get similar results.

Let's also not forget surface vessels like a Dreadnought or Battleship are now likely to have "Fire Control" and able to attack multiple times in a single turn... a Battleship let-loose on a loosely guarded convoy can do the same or worse in a single turn to a stack of ships.

Hmm. Yes; however, the choice to be "loosely guarded" was made by the opponent, and is his own dumb, damn fault.

Subs as proposed, however, can do their trick no matter how well the convoy is guarded.

I personally don't see this as being anything close to a gamebreaker or a cheat of any kind. An enemy approaching with a convoy of transports would require a roughly equal-size force of enemy subs in it's way to stop it in a single turn.

I must not understand what you did, then.

I'm thinking you're making it the same as mounted. So, no matter how many riflemen are escorting the cannons, my very first cavalry unit will flank attack the cannons. There can be 1 rifleman, there can be 50. Doesn't matter.

Did you make the subs like this, or what, exactly?

How often does an enemy transport force sneak-in with only a turn's notice (or no notice at all?). If you've got 4 or 5 subs all within a single turn's move and attack, good for you... you deserve to sink his stack in one turn... but how many folks are going to have more then one or two subs in the vicinity? You're probably still better off with one large battleship (with fire control) then two or three subs in the area.

Depends on if you have a tech lead and how many units are in the escorting force.

At this point, I need to wait on your answer to how you implemented the feature, before responding.

To answer the question about the enemy sneaking his invasion fleet within 1 turn... it's not difficult at all. Religious and espionage line of sight means you can see the opponent in many cases. Where it's not, a single caravel is all that's needed.

I personally make it a priority to always have my caravels see who has large numbers of galleons or transports. A couple of them, who cares. They can sneak it within 1 turn of my borders... I can handle that. It's the big invasions that are trouble.

Once I determine who has the large transport fleets, I either target them by my privateers or I leave the caravel sitting there so I can see when the transports leave port. From that point, it's easy to assemble the subs all at one point. And damn sight I will, if the subs are implemented this way.

The main purpose of this was just to give more meaning/purpose to subs, and give them a little more "bite" then what they normally have. For the cost and tech requirements, the surface ships are usually faster/stronger then the sub, so this is more to even the plate a little then to make the sub all-powerful and game-breaking.

That's my take on it anyways... maybe I'm wrong... maybe this ruins play balance... I don't think so, but I'm certainly open to opinions.

Maybe at this point I should say if you wanted a way to make me want to use subs, you sure did it.

I suggested 70% earlier because Flanking 1 only grants 10%, Flaning 2 is 20%, so it's 100% in the end, I like how Wolf did it with 60% for subs and 70% for modren subs.

My bad. For some reason I was remembering Flanking1 as 20%.

Wodan

 

[Wolfshanze]

I personally don't see this as being anything close to a gamebreaker or a cheat of any kind. An enemy approaching with a convoy of transports would require a roughly equal-size force of enemy subs in it's way to stop it in a single turn.

I must not understand what you did, then.

I'm thinking you're making it the same as mounted. So, no matter how many riflemen are escorting the cannons, my very first cavalry unit will flank attack the cannons. There can be 1 rifleman, there can be 50. Doesn't matter.

Did you make the subs like this, or what, exactly?

Yes... they're basically the same as Knights vs Catapults... but perhaps you're remembering that flanking part wrong.

Yes... a SINGLE attack by a flanker (Knight or Sub) against a defender can cause damage to the target behind the line (Catapult or Transport).

However, you're assuming massive catastrophic damage against the entire stack from a single attacker... that just doesn't happen.

You need at least three attacking subs in one turn to sink ANY Paddle Steamers from collateral damage... you need at least four attacking subs in one turn to sink ANY Transports from collateral damage. Also... the number of units effected by collateral damage is random each attack, but never more then five units (and often fewer).

A single Battleship with the "Fire Control" promotion could sink several enemy ships in a single attack in a single turn... that's economy of force.

If anybody wants to stop an invasion of transports, you're going to need a "Wolf Pack" of at least FOUR Submarines, with each said stack of Wolf Packs able to intercept from any angle at a moment's notice. In other words, to cover more then a few squares of coastline from invasion, you could require the production of tens or scores of subs to be able to hit an advancing fleet hard enough to actually sink transports on collateral damage alone in a single round.

Considering the number of people on the forum that continually complain of getting "blindsided" by approaching AI transports, I certainly don't think what I've done is any savior for anybody, but simply another choice of defense... a wolfpack is an option, but lone hunters aren't going to save anybody.

Are my changes more useful then default subs without my changes? Considering they were nearly useless before compared to other comperable units... yes... they're more useful now... as long as you operate them in Wolfpacks of four or more... because a lone sub isn't going to sink any transports that are in a protected convoy by himself unless he's got four or more turns to continually attack unmolested.

I'd say the change I made is NOT earth-shattering or throws the game balance out of whack... I'd say Subs are now usefull... and could be worked into a defensive or offensive strategy, but by no means are overpowered anymore then a battleship with fire control is.

That's my take on it.

 

[GeneralMatt]

Does not the sub only damage the transports if it wins or withdraws? So if you have a great anti-sub fleet (An anti sub promotion might be added) then there is a good chance your sub will be destroyed. Maybe that anti-sub promotion could take away some of that withdrawal chance (if that is possible).

 

[arstal]

Have you considered changing the game mechanics to allow planes to sink ships? That would power up Carriers, which to me seem the ultimate useless unit in most cases.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Have you considered changing the game mechanics to allow planes to sink ships? That would power up Carriers, which to me seem the ultimate useless unit in most cases.

I probably would if I only knew how... if anybody knows how to change this, I'm all ears.

 

[Pendragon65]

Yeah does anybody know how to do this Firaxis have not heard of midway etc obviously

 

[SlimDuece]

You can do it in Road to War. Might want to ask the guy who made it, cant remember his name off the top of my head.