HOF V3 - Age of Heros
- Thread starter eric_A
- Start date
eric_A
Deity
The parachute division cost just a little less than twice the cost
of a regular foot infantry division. This is to include the cost of transport
aircraft. I think I might raise the cost even higher in the next version,
probably to 2.5 times the cost of foot inf.
The question pertains to airlift, as Sully points out it is highly unrealistic
for the 1940s to be able to go from Canada to India in one hop, but then
again, a turn is a whole month so you could fly anywhere in the world, assuming
you have a string of airfields all within the range of your aircraft.
Do we:
1. Get rid of airlift
2. Create a new house rule limiting airlifts, say maybe to 3 times your airdrop
range.
of a regular foot infantry division. This is to include the cost of transport
aircraft. I think I might raise the cost even higher in the next version,
probably to 2.5 times the cost of foot inf.
The question pertains to airlift, as Sully points out it is highly unrealistic
for the 1940s to be able to go from Canada to India in one hop, but then
again, a turn is a whole month so you could fly anywhere in the world, assuming
you have a string of airfields all within the range of your aircraft.
Do we:
1. Get rid of airlift
2. Create a new house rule limiting airlifts, say maybe to 3 times your airdrop
range.
Bowsling
Deity
3. Keep it. 
Elephantium
Trampling the AI
In practical terms, it can also be modeled as taking a transport overseas with only a short plane hop at the end. After all, the Allies had sea control in most areas...
Cyc
Looking for the door...
No, thanks Sully. I just like pissing off Elephant butt whenever I can.For the record...I will take the US in a new game and suggest Cyc take the helm of the IJN/IJA and I will prove this statement above to be absolutely incorrect!! Takers??
aksully
Deity
Well in defense of my suggestion I make the following comments
-When the 82nd and 101st were reassigned to England from the US, they went by boat not aircraft.
-Just to make the channel D-Day drop for the 3 Allied Airborne Divs took every single transport they had.
-During the course of the 4 year war the Allies were only able to raise the 3 Airborne Divs. Forming these formations required extensive and specialized training that was more than regular divisions.
-In this past game though Japan controlled all of India, Australia, etc...the Minor Allies could still build Para Divs in South America and transport them in one move (month) to China! Without even the possibility/chance of being intercepted!
-I understand the point Eric tries to make about moving them via a string of Airfields. But the unrealistic airlift feature as is now is just a Point A to B without regard to range, logistics, friendly airfields, friendly control of the skies, etc.
I mean wouldn't you think that if even the Allies had been able to stage just one Airborne Div from the US to Britain to the Med to India, that once they'd "fly the hump" with all those slow C-47s... that the Jap Air Force wouldn't intercept them?
So that's just some further explanations in supporting my proposal.
-When the 82nd and 101st were reassigned to England from the US, they went by boat not aircraft.
-Just to make the channel D-Day drop for the 3 Allied Airborne Divs took every single transport they had.
-During the course of the 4 year war the Allies were only able to raise the 3 Airborne Divs. Forming these formations required extensive and specialized training that was more than regular divisions.
-In this past game though Japan controlled all of India, Australia, etc...the Minor Allies could still build Para Divs in South America and transport them in one move (month) to China! Without even the possibility/chance of being intercepted!
-I understand the point Eric tries to make about moving them via a string of Airfields. But the unrealistic airlift feature as is now is just a Point A to B without regard to range, logistics, friendly airfields, friendly control of the skies, etc.
I mean wouldn't you think that if even the Allies had been able to stage just one Airborne Div from the US to Britain to the Med to India, that once they'd "fly the hump" with all those slow C-47s... that the Jap Air Force wouldn't intercept them?
So that's just some further explanations in supporting my proposal.
aksully
Deity
aksully
Deity
True E. BUT in our game again it doesn't allow for the control of the seas. Those transports "hop" from one continent to another without regard to the tactical or strategic situations that have been acheived in game.
It is opposite of say what it takes to move the convoy supplies from Canada to Britain in our game. This is very realistic in that one has to build the ships, have the units to secure the resources, then build the supporting naval units and then have to fight their way across the Atlantic. All the while UBoats nipping at their heels or should I say...hulls!!!
eric_A
Deity
1 squadron every 4 months IS the current production rate!
aksully
Deity
Actually looking back at my notes I had written 6 so pardon the typo!!!
eric_A
Deity
When London got nuked the commercial dock was destroyed, so yes it
does randomly destroy some improvements. Not that there is anything I can
do about it since it is all hard-coded into Civ3.
Shall I remove the current uranium site in France and move it to Norway?
aksully
Deity
Oh ok Eric about the hard code is that also true about the attack factor of it as well?
As to the Paris Uranium source..I'm not aware of that as a WWII era source are you? I definitely would add the Norway sources. But will try to find some references to France sources. Obviously the French have access to uranium but will look at this the next couple of days and get back to you.
eric_A
Deity
Germany captured a large stockpile of uranium from Belgium in 1940. So uranium
was not the problem, it was the heavy water and the fact that so many of the best
physicists had fled the Nazis. So moving the resource to Norway would make sense
historically.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
I think you're over-playing the cost of the plane and fuel. Ground troops still need to be transported also. Whether by plane, ship, or transport (or all three). Then there's the time cost and the food and care for the ground troops. Sending 150 Paratroopers 4,000 miles safely in a week by plane is probably about the same as sending 150 Infantry over land the same distance. And yes, I still think you should reduce the turns to one week, instead of one month.
Make a new rule where the range of the paratrooper is the amount of tiles equal to 4,000 miles in a week's turn. England to India = 4,000 miles. Shipping men from Canada to England to India = 2 weeks.
eric_A
Deity
Both the attack and bombard factor are 0 for the a-bomb.
eric_A
Deity
The first version of HOF had 2 week turns, we found the games always
ended with one side crushing the other when we were halfway (or less) to
1945. So I shortened it by making turns monthly.
It is a lot of work since you have to change all ship movement allowance and
all of the unit's production cost when you change timescale.
This last game was unusual, going all the way to the end. The Axis
clearly won by points, but neither Russia or Germany collapsed which
causes the game to end prematurely.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
It was a good game. My inexperience as the US didn't help the Allies, and I believe the US to be much more potent. Extending the game time to weeks instead of months, IMO, would give the different sides time to compensate for a "crushing foe". By the time I got the true lay of the land, Germany and Japan were unstoppable.
Elephantium
Trampling the AI
Funny, by time we got to 1945, it was all I could do to stave off total collapse. Every landing by the Allied troops practically gave me a heart attack! 
Even 12 more turns would have seen the utter defeat of Germany -- the UK and US were keeping up enough pressure that the best I could hope for was to slow down the Russian advance. I didn't have a prayer of pushing the battle lines back.
All in all, it was a pretty wild game!
Even 12 more turns would have seen the utter defeat of Germany -- the UK and US were keeping up enough pressure that the best I could hope for was to slow down the Russian advance. I didn't have a prayer of pushing the battle lines back.
All in all, it was a pretty wild game!
Bowsling
Deity
I'm interested actually - how strongly were Konigsberg and Berlin defended on the last turn? I had everything set in motion for an attack on Berlin next turn (which I thought was the last turn 
): A few assorted armoured vehicles and ~10-15 bombers in Riga, and a Mech Infantry Div lurking on a boat in the Baltic which could have reached Berlin if I took Konigsberg. Would have been a pretty fun way to cap it all off, if it worked! 
): A few assorted armoured vehicles and ~10-15 bombers in Riga, and a Mech Infantry Div lurking on a boat in the Baltic which could have reached Berlin if I took Konigsberg. Would have been a pretty fun way to cap it all off, if it worked! 
