OTR - JPetroski (Allies) vs. Prof Garfield (Axis)

[JPetroski]

Quite anti-anticlimactically, Tirpitz is sunk with one shot... Maybe the task forces should be direct attack units so they trade blows? I think I had them as ranged attack at first for various reasons, including giving shore batteries something to shoot at, but now that those attack landing craft, maybe it doesn't matter?

 

[Prof. Garfield]

A couple more bombs fall on Cardiff. No hurry to play the next turn.

Quite anti-anticlimactically, Tirpitz is sunk with one shot... Maybe the task forces should be direct attack units so they trade blows? I think I had them as ranged attack at first for various reasons, including giving shore batteries something to shoot at, but now that those attack landing craft, maybe it doesn't matter?

I think I wanted to make that as a last minute change. The problem is that if it has a high attack value, it can bombard the shore almost with impunity. If it has a low attack value, we need to alter the defences of all the naval units (and add the x2 vs air flag) to compensate. We could use the submarine flag to prevent shore bombardment, but if anything deserves to be seen from afar, it is the task forces.

 

[JPetroski]

Some fighting at night destroys a bomber.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Heavily damaged Urban target destroyed, a convoy is sunk also, and a Beaufighter has been shot down.

The Germans desperately try to stop a carrier from returning to the Atlantic. Stukas attack, and even fighters strafe the carrier with machine guns. Egon Mayer even daringly fired rockets at the carrier.

I noticed a B17 on patrol in the Atlantic, as well as an A20. I noticed an A20 before, and with the extended range, it should make a decent anti-sub plane. I like this, since it is another reason to build the unit. The flexibility means that the resources put into the battle of the Atlantic won't be dead weight afterward.

 

[JPetroski]

A sub is killed in the Atlantic, some He111s are shot down at night.

Do you remember if you got reinforcements based on turn or point scale? I know it is point scale now and I'm wondering if that is a mistake. I'm not sure I can overtake you at this point, as I have nothing to fight with, but we'll see. The good news is "the build up" is pretty much done so I can start converting to production.

 

[JPetroski]

You are a significantly better player than me, and I designed the game compared to Fairline who is just learning it, and that could be skewing things significantly, but.... Both Allies are doing significantly worse than they did when you played them. So I have a few questions:

1. Would it make sense for the Allies to start with significantly more Spitfires, so that they could pretty much own the air "in a little cluster" near England if they wanted to? (They pretty much could with their Rodeos).
2. If we did that, would it also make sense that now the Hurricane should be the only carrier fighter (to prevent the Allies from loading up carriers with all these new-found Spits and artificially increasing their range)?
3. Would it make sense to try and reduce the Allied industrial buildup time (it takes about 25 turns. Maybe it should take 12)?

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Do you remember if you got reinforcements based on turn or point scale? I know it is point scale now and I'm wondering if that is a mistake. I'm not sure I can overtake you at this point, as I have nothing to fight with, but we'll see. The good news is "the build up" is pretty much done so I can start converting to production.

I think they were on the points scale, but I also got reinforcements for the special missions (though I don't think that applies yet). It might make sense to have a catch up mechanic where if you don't achieve a certain level of points, you get reinforcements at a turn. Or, maybe, if you don't get a battle group reinforcement, you get a bunch of aircraft instead.

1. Would it make sense for the Allies to start with significantly more Spitfires, so that they could pretty much own the air "in a little cluster" near England if they wanted to? (They pretty much could with their Rodeos).

I think so. Since the Spitfire's range is so short, I don't think it would imbalance the rest of the game.

2. If we did that, would it also make sense that now the Hurricane should be the only carrier fighter (to prevent the Allies from loading up carriers with all these new-found Spits and artificially increasing their range)?

You'd have to let the Hurricane go to high altitude. I think the Allies should have the option to use carrier based escorts, even if they ultimately choose not to.

3. Would it make sense to try and reduce the Allied industrial buildup time (it takes about 25 turns. Maybe it should take 12)?

I'm not sure about that one. It takes the Germans a while to build up, too, and I've only just completed the "economic" technologies and 2 political supports.

For what it is worth, I haven't used trains to build economic improvements, on the basis that they cost twice as much when trains are used. So, I'll rush the level 1 industry, and subsequently build the other improvements with regular city production, instead using the trains from France (and trains built by fully operational cities) to produce my aircraft. I've been thinking that maybe aircraft should only be built in airfields in Germany, which would mean that trains in France have to first travel to Germany, making for a bit of a delay, and a reason to attack the railyards controlling the connection.

I think we do have to take into account that one player is likely to be better than the other. Perhaps, we can use the delays technology. If the player researches delays, then they can get some substantial reinforcements, but at some cost. That could sort of 'reset' the game in some sense.

I've used up my time this morning, so I can't play a turn until late afternoon or evening. If you want to give yourself some extra units to stabilize your position, go ahead. Maybe look at my turn 30 position in the last game to get an idea of where you 'should' be.

 

[JPetroski]

I've used up my time this morning, so I can't play a turn until late afternoon or evening. If you want to give yourself some extra units to stabilize your position, go ahead. Maybe look at my turn 30 position in the last game to get an idea of where you 'should' be.

No - let's keep playing without doing this at this time - I want to see how things play out.

 

[JPetroski]

I think we do have to take into account that one player is likely to be better than the other. Perhaps, we can use the delays technology. If the player researches delays, then they can get some substantial reinforcements, but at some cost. That could sort of 'reset' the game in some sense.

I mean I guess the cost is kind of the delay in and of itself. I'm pretty much considering a similar strategy right now, but just with maximizing gold early so I can hopefully start rush-buying aircraft. This is going to lead you to have a technological advantage. Wouldn't delays do the same thing? Maybe "delays" simply means concentrating on existing airframe types (or, perhaps even an airframe back as a further punishment). So theoretically speaking, say I had the 2nd P-47 and the B-24 (which is "bomber 2" and ran into a snag. If I researched "delays," I would get a number of 1st generation B-17s and 1st generation P-47s. So not great equipment, but quantity.

Edit - if you like this idea and want to implement it, then what I would suggest for our current game is that when I research the tech I'm currently going for, I will edit cheat mode, remove that tech, pretend I researched Delays, and give myself the reinforcements as I would have utilized this mechanism on this tech cycle. Thus I will fall behind on tech as would have happened.

What are your thoughts about reinforcements? How much is a 4-5 turn "tech spot" worth from a production standpoint? Maybe 10x day bombers, 10x night bombers, 5x day fighters, 2x night fighters?

You'd have to let the Hurricane go to high altitude. I think the Allies should have the option to use carrier based escorts, even if they ultimately choose not to.

That could work; there'd be more reason to have Hurricanes, but they're weak enough I wouldn't think it would imbalance things.

I've been thinking that maybe aircraft should only be built in airfields in Germany, which would mean that trains in France have to first travel to Germany, making for a bit of a delay, and a reason to attack the railyards controlling the connection.

I think that would make sense in that it would make the supply chain mechanism better. The Allies have a long way to go to get their freighters to England for free trains so it would make sense for Germany to also have to move them a ways to get the benefit. They can always use them to spam improvements in France, but those are very vulnerable. To make it easy, I'd suggest a line of 265 and east can build aircraft. For that matter, the Allies should probably only be able to build aircraft in England (so 202 or west, and north of 76).

 

[Buck2005]

You are a significantly better player than me, and I designed the game compared to Fairline who is just learning it, and that could be skewing things significantly, but....

Professor Garfield, you seem to be a really cool player in civ2. I was impressed with your victory in the match "imperialism2". Playing a scenariois probably very interesting, much like playing a game of 3d chess. It’s also a great workout for the mind: )


.

It’s a pity that you don’t play a regular game, ordinary “chess” according to standard rules. It would be very interesting to play with you ... However, of course, everyone plays according to their preferences ...)

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Bombs and bullets sink an aircraft carrier near Crown Point. I also got a convoy somewhere, I think (or, maybe, I only damaged it). Some bombs fell at night, but no urban target was defeated.

I'll implement the aircraft building restriction shortly. It won't be too difficult.

The extra aircraft for researching delays is a bit harder, since we have to decide how to give them (and how much). Perhaps just a menu, where the player chooses 3 lots of 10 aircraft or something, based on need. The trouble is that if the bonus is large enough to 'reset' the situation, it would really be the best thing to research. I'm thinking that researching it for the Allies should take away their Task Force's unit holds, so they can't invade. I'm thinking first 1 sets earliest invasion turn to 80, and each subsequent delays researched postpones the earliest invasion date by 10 turns. Maybe one of the options should be 2 battle groups, so if by turn 80, the Allies haven't met their points goals, they can still have the potential to invade.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

It’s a pity that you don’t play a regular game, ordinary “chess” according to standard rules. It would be very interesting to play with you ... However, of course, everyone plays according to their preferences ...)

Until I got involved in programming Lua, most of my civ time was actually playing the classic game. I rather enjoy the 'building' aspect of Civ II, and I sort of view the other tribes as kind of like 'scenery' while I try to efficiently create a massive empire. That is rather different than a 1v1 duel. Over the Reich isn't something that I would have built on my own initiative, but I still ended up enjoying working on it, and now playing it. A 1v1 duel in classic would either be a prolonged way to play an empire builder (if the civs were spread out), or an exercise in early warfare, which isn't my strong suit anyway.

Back in the day, I played a few 'succession games' (found in the stories and tales forum), which I enjoyed quite a bit. They were the base game, often with some kind of restriction, or just on a very difficult level (deity plus 3 usually). I enjoyed discussing tactics and playing very deliberately for a few turns, and then passing the game to someone else to see what they would do.

 

[JPetroski]

3x wolf pack, 2x night fighter, 2x night bombers destroyed.

The extra aircraft for researching delays is a bit harder, since we have to decide how to give them (and how much). Perhaps just a menu, where the player chooses 3 lots of 10 aircraft or something, based on need. The trouble is that if the bonus is large enough to 'reset' the situation, it would really be the best thing to research. I'm thinking that researching it for the Allies should take away their Task Force's unit holds, so they can't invade. I'm thinking first 1 sets earliest invasion turn to 80, and each subsequent delays researched postpones the earliest invasion date by 10 turns. Maybe one of the options should be 2 battle groups, so if by turn 80, the Allies haven't met their points goals, they can still have the potential to invade.

Well there's only 125 turns so if we're setting things back 10 turns each with a base of 80, 30 aircraft (which our last game showed can be destroyed in moments) is nothing. We'd be talking something significantly greater. But, with that all said, I like your idea and think that is a good balance. At the end of the day, invading by 80 still leaves plenty of time, but 90 or 100 would be cutting it close considering the Allies just don't have many mobile units (the battle group is really it)...110 probably isn't possible. So maybe this solution would work and still be fair. I'd also argue that this mechanism can only be used if the Allies haven't captured any cities.

You understand the production math/game mechanics much better than I do so I'd appreciate your thoughts, and I'm just throwing a number out there, but I think it is more appropriate than 30. Suppose it is 100, and there are 10 "lots" of 10 aircraft each that the Allies get to choose, but they can only choose aircraft they can currently research. So someone might choose 100 spitfires, or 100 B-17s, or some combo of everything. Is 100 the right number? Taking it to an extreme, if I chose 80 Spits and 20 B-17s, I could probably hit all targets within range close to impunity but couldn't push much past it.

Thinking it through a bit, the fighters are what would imbalance things - based on range. Maybe this can only be done with "tier 1" fighters? (Spit IX, P-47D11, P-38H, no Mustang).

It's a very challenging thing to balance because a skilled player like yourself had no problem filling the skies with Allied bombers yet I'm having a very hard time building any of them and am scratching my head if they cost too much.

As for the Germans, we don't really want them "resetting" the situation too much, but I would have found it immensely helpful to get a few "prototype" jet fighters early. Maybe the Germans can choose to obtain a hand full (honestly, 2-3 would make a big dent, especially if given before better Allied jabo can clear their airfields) of jet aircraft? I'm not sure what the penalty should be.

 

[Buck2005]

The building aspect of the game is also most interesting to me: economics, logistics. However, the final battle of the superpowers is of course the highlight of such a game. The downside of this game format is the extremely disproportionate distribution of time for "development" and for war. In almost all the games in which I participated or watched (like your “imperialism”, for example), the situation was the same: players spend a huge number of rounds on “development” (it seems that “imperialism” you played a year and a half). The final war takes 1-2-3 rounds, usually in the form of a very brief blitzkrieg. This of course spoils the fun of the game. And robs her of much of the intrigue. Already in the middle of the game, you can briefly look at the "development" of the participants to instantly assess their prospects for victory.

Nevertheless, this format of the game, despite all its obvious shortcomings, is, as it seems to me, the essence of civ2 as a 4x strategy.

 

[JPetroski]

Buck you raise an interesting point that I agree with... I've been reading through several old PBEMs and have found that many have a lengthy build up that just suddenly ends with one short, yet major war. I'm currently building a cold war scenario where I'm trying to avoid that... I'd love your thoughts on if my plan may work. The thread is over in the Scenario League forum.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Port at Cardiff destroyed, a convoy sunk and a couple planes downed.

It's a very challenging thing to balance because a skilled player like yourself had no problem filling the skies with Allied bombers yet I'm having a very hard time building any of them and am scratching my head if they cost too much.

We made the Battle of the Atlantic favour Germany more in this version, and I've also been putting some resources into it, so you've been receiving a smaller number of convoys, thus reducing your aircraft output. I also think I was gaining just enough points with each of my attacks that I would receive the next complement of event driven bombers, to help me through the early game. That said, the Allies should have had an easier time at night, since escape into the night wasn't introduced until around the time of the Hamburg event.

 

[Buck2005]

Buck you raise an interesting point that I agree with... I've been reading through several old PBEMs and have found that many have a lengthy build up that just suddenly ends with one short, yet major war. I'm currently building a cold war scenario where I'm trying to avoid that... I'd love your thoughts on if my plan may work. The thread is over in the Scenario League forum.

You have a very interesting proxy war concept. As far as I understand the essence of your concept, these are: two untouchable “cores” that generate economy, science and production. And two "periphery", whose cities are randomly mixed randomly, and waging an endless war among themselves. Perhaps this will really help solve the problem of the "last quick war." True, it is not very clear what to do if, for example, the United States suddenly decides to directly attack the pro-east, and the USSR directly attacks the pro-west. Are you planning to introduce a home rule prohibiting a direct attack?

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Well there's only 125 turns so if we're setting things back 10 turns each with a base of 80, 30 aircraft (which our last game showed can be destroyed in moments) is nothing. We'd be talking something significantly greater. But, with that all said, I like your idea and think that is a good balance. At the end of the day, invading by 80 still leaves plenty of time, but 90 or 100 would be cutting it close considering the Allies just don't have many mobile units (the battle group is really it)...110 probably isn't possible. So maybe this solution would work and still be fair. I'd also argue that this mechanism can only be used if the Allies haven't captured any cities.

You understand the production math/game mechanics much better than I do so I'd appreciate your thoughts, and I'm just throwing a number out there, but I think it is more appropriate than 30. Suppose it is 100, and there are 10 "lots" of 10 aircraft each that the Allies get to choose, but they can only choose aircraft they can currently research. So someone might choose 100 spitfires, or 100 B-17s, or some combo of everything. Is 100 the right number? Taking it to an extreme, if I chose 80 Spits and 20 B-17s, I could probably hit all targets within range close to impunity but couldn't push much past it.

At the moment, 100 seems rather high. Maybe what we have to do is take a crude measure of each side's "power" and close, say, 2/3 of the gap. So, if the Germans have 100 aircraft, and the Allies 40, the gap is 60, and 2/3 of that would be 40 bonus planes. Perhaps we'd need to count industry and refineries, so that someone doesn't neglect aircraft for a while, and use the delays bonus to catch up. We could do a slightly less crude version by counting shields, or give each unit a weight manually.

 

[Buck2005]

Are you planning to introduce a home rule prohibiting a direct attack?

I will add. I read the initial post of your thread more carefully, and realized that the answer to my question is there. So, not relevant ...)

In general, I really have nothing to advise you. My interests in moding are different, and as a rule they rarely overlap with the theme of your scenarios. The main subject of your modding is unit manipulation. It is around them that the framework of all scenarios is built. For me, on the contrary, modding units at the very bottom of the priorities.

Nevertheless, I remember that in the discussion of the finale of "imperialism" some participants expressed quite correct ideas. For example, it was proposed to carry out a complete rebalancing of all marine units, so that they could only battle with each other, and not enter into confrontation with land units. This is a very true idea, since the experience of the classic game suggests that the notorious blitzkrieg is usually built around marine units.

In the original game, they are excessively strong, and also have excessively many movement points. The main problem of the “sudden blitzkrieg” is the inability to deliver a “guaranteed retaliatory strike”. This is a built-in civ2 game mechanics issue. In all the games where I won, the surprise attack was carefully planned so that the opponent could not respond. The capture of several key cities led to surrender in 1-2 rounds. One of the reasons for this problem is the possibility of an "instant landing" from the sea. That is, the attacking side brings a sufficient number of strong attacking units to the cities of the enemy (Prof. Garfield used a marine paratrooper napimer, and in the classic game usually used the landing of elephants or crusaders). The attacking units in one decisive move deal one single blow, and the game ends, as the defender simply does not have the opportunity to strike back. One of the ways to solve this problem is to eliminate the possibility of an "instant landing" (remove naval paratroopers, remove double movement points from crusaders and other similar attacking units). Thus, the attacker during the landing will first have to expose his unit under attack. and only having sustained it (for example, having a multiple advantage in the number of units) can he continue the attack.

Personally, my interest in modding is manipulating the settings of the types of terrain. In your scenarios, as a rule, they simply copy the original settings from the vanilla game (like Grassland gives 2 food and one more with irrigation). This is one of the reasons why I am not interested in scenarios.

 

[JPetroski]

Sorry for the delay... It is my wife's birthday - should have mentioned it earlier.

Anyway:

3x Me109G6
1x Fw190A5
4x Ju88C
5x He111
1x Wolf pack

Destroyed.