My next Project - WWII in Europe

[Dreadnought]

ohhh i thought you meant like: the alliance ends, then a event happens and Germany recieves all Italian land, or something.

my fault.

 

[kobayashi]

Originally posted by kobayashi:
OK OK OK OK I will squeeze the B-17 in somehow ....

Did some checking, courtesty of
http://www.aviation-history.com/index-aircraft.htm

B-17 max payload 6,000 pounds and max range 1,100 miles

Lancaster max payload 14,000 pounds and max range 1,660 miles

B-24 max payload 8,000 pounds and max range 2,200 miles

B-29 max payload 20,000 pounds and max range 4,200 miles

Well as you can see, the B-17 is an early design and not even in the same class as the Lanc. Other than for sentimental reasons, the B-17 really isn't relevant to the scenario scheme. I could really use this redundant slot to add the SU-100 tank destroyer.

added later

HE-277 max payload 9,000 pounds and max range 9,600 miles (cause it had another role - as sea recon and anti-shipping for another variant and it was meant to eventually drop the A-bomb on America)



[This message has been edited by kobayashi (edited March 16, 2001).]

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

You couldn't be more wrong, Kob. The American Flying Fortress was designed for daylight precision bombing, and could survive in the daylight skys over the Reich. It was the most survivalble Heavy bomber of World War Two. It could take twice the damage of a Liberator, and Three times the damage of a Lancaster. The B-17 bomb load capicity was lowered with each mark to increase defensive gun power and armor plate for crew protection. It was harder to build then the B-24 or Lancaster, but it was a better aircraft. The Lancaster had the largest bomb load of any european theater Heavy bomber, but Britain dared not use it in daylight, as it would have no chance in combat against the Luftwaffe. It's your choice, but the Flying Fortress was far more impotant then any Soviet assault gun or tank destroyer, and carried the daylight airwar in Europe untill 1944, and still had many combat wings in 1945.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/blast.gif" border=0><FONT size="4"><FONT COLOR="blue">All knowledge begins with the Phrase:</FONT c><FONT COLOR="red"> I don't know</FONT c></FONT s><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/ninja1.gif" border=0>

 

[Dreadnought]

Sounds good to me, personally i thought the b-17 was more important.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Alcibiaties is right. I really haven't got anything to add. The only really important Russian tank was the T-34.

------------------
Concordia res parvae cres****.

 

[kobayashi]

I am almost finished! I have done the units, tech tree, terrain, cities and map. It is playabe but unrefined for the time being. All I need to do now is:

1. finish the events and messages
2. modify the labels and other in-game terminology
3. do the icons for the improvements
4. add a few sounds
5. fine tune the balance.

Found out that aircraft can't be made to pillage. Too bad...it was a great idea.

 

[kobayashi]

Alcib, I've sent what I have so far to you to play around with.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Be sure to send the first (test)version to me too, kobayashi. (except for the sounds)

------------------
Concordia res parvae cres****.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by kobayashi:
Alcib, I've sent what I have so far to you to play around with.

I'll take a look at it when i get home, Kob.


------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/blast.gif" border=0><FONT size="4"><FONT COLOR="blue">All knowledge begins with the Phrase:</FONT c><FONT COLOR="red"> I don't know</FONT c></FONT s><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/ninja1.gif" border=0>

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

I sent some comments about the map to your Singapore address Kob. I'll send something about the game play in my next message.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/blast.gif" border=0><FONT size="4"><FONT COLOR="blue">All knowledge begins with the Phrase:</FONT c><FONT COLOR="red"> I don't know</FONT c></FONT s><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/ninja1.gif" border=0>

 

[kobayashi]

Originally posted by willemvanoranje:
Be sure to send the first (test)version to me too, kobayashi. (except for the sounds)

You only need to wait about a week for the final beta. It will be much better. I am only sending it to Alcib cause we are testing the multi-player of the final beta and he needs to familiarise himself with the game first.

 

[kobayashi]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae:
You couldn't be more wrong, Kob. The American Flying Fortress was designed for daylight precision bombing, and could survive in the daylight skys over the Reich. It was the most survivalble Heavy bomber of World War Two. It could take twice the damage of a Liberator, and Three times the damage of a Lancaster. The B-17 bomb load capicity was lowered with each mark to increase defensive gun power and armor plate for crew protection. It was harder to build then the B-24 or Lancaster, but it was a better aircraft. The Lancaster had the largest bomb load of any european theater Heavy bomber, but Britain dared not use it in daylight, as it would have no chance in combat against the Luftwaffe. It's your choice, but the Flying Fortress was far more impotant then any Soviet assault gun or tank destroyer, and carried the daylight airwar in Europe untill 1944, and still had many combat wings in 1945.

I tried to find something official about the US Bombers since I was apparently out numbered on the issue of the B-17. I finally came up with the US Strategic Bombing Survey Report (sept 1945) which was established by the Secretary of War of the period.
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm

It contains many interesting facts among which:

The Allies dropped 2.7 million tons of bombs in total.

About 160,000 Allied airmen were lost in action.

Over 40,000 Allied planes were lost or damaged beyond repair.

The Luftwaffe was defeated not because they ran out of planes (of which they had plenty) but because they ran out of pilots and fuel.

Beyond disrupting oil supplies (this proved to be instrumental in Germany's defeat), the bombing of other targets proved to have little effect on production which continued to increase. Plenty of cities were leveled in the process. The report also says that the RAF tried daylight bombing in 1940 and gave up after sustaining heavy losses.

The interesting coment was that the B-17s of the 8th Air Force had limited range and effect when they were introduced in late 1942. They also mistakenly thought that the B-17s could fly unescourted in daylight but by 1943 when losses became unacceptably high, they too gave up on daylight unescourted bombing. It was only when long range escourts (i.e. Mustangs) became available in early 1944 did the 8th Air Force's bombers become viable.

[This message has been edited by kobayashi (edited March 24, 2001).]

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

The last deep penetration raids that were unescorted by fighters was the Scweinfurt/Regensburg raid on 17th August 1943, and the second Scweinfurt raid of 14th October, 1943. Over 60 Flying Fortresses were lost by the strike force out of 376 dispatched in the first raid, and 60 were lost out of 291 in the second raid. Unescorted bombing was never possible without heavy losses. My point is that the Lancaster would have been lost in even greater numbers then the more sturdy B-17. The biggist fans of the Flying Fortress were oddly enough, the German pilots that fought against it! Adolph Galland, German ace and commander of all German fighters in the second half of WWII said as much in his book "The first and the Last". Steinhoff and Nowotny also were of the view that the B-17 was a dangerous plane to engage in the skies over the Reich. The survey was correct. Strategic daylight bombimg bled the Luftwaffe white, and by 1945 had laid waste German fuel industry, and wrecked transportation routes throughout Europe. It never reduced German production in the long run. Germany built more single engine fighters in 1944 alone then it did from 1933-42! The Flying Fortress was the queen of the skies over Europe. The last word goes to the crews of the planes themselves, who said that that they would rather serve on a B-17 more then any other bomber, even the B-29!

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/blast.gif" border=0><FONT size="4"><FONT COLOR="blue">All knowledge begins with the Phrase:</FONT c><FONT COLOR="red"> I don't know</FONT c></FONT s><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/ninja1.gif" border=0>

 

[kobayashi]

Latest Update

I've tied down almost everything and I'm down to doing the civpedia and just a few minor label changes. Should be anytime now that version 1.0 is released.

Alcib, if you have anything more to add, now's a good time (my office e-mail is down today) so you can post it here. (I already know of the repeating Sherman message and the unexpected obsolescence of Allied Infantry and Militia)

Suggest everyone start looking for a partner to try out the scenario via hotseat e-mail.

 

[Squirrel2004]

I've got one:
Advance: Amphibious Tractors(pre. -Amphibious Warfare and Mobile Warfare, or other if you prefer)

Unit: Amphibious Tractor
Carry (4?) Marines
Must stay near land (Trireme rule)
Cost about 1/3 the price of a transport
Attack - 0
All other ## have half that of a transport, including movement

Unit: Frogmen ( or BUD unit)
Must stay near land (Trireme rule)
-no other special abilities
1 movement
high attack, enough to kill a cruiser
low defense, it's a guy swimming...
cost is up to you

Squirrel2004

 

[willemvanoranje]

The scenario is already finished. However, kobayashi can decide to use it in a patch or something, but I think his scenario is great as it is.

------------------
Concordia res parvae cres****.