Suggestions

[Jagordon]

I'm not sure what you have changed, but is there a way to do any of these:

Make ships invisible to units unless in a coastal waters (as opposed to open ocean) except for ships, so fleets are not so unrealistically easy to track. Give carrier ablility to see ships for a little more distance (to represent recon planes). Give destroyers a slightly stackable air defense to represent a destroyer screen to protect against planes (no major ship was without one). Ships immune against collateral damage, since when does a bomber attack a whole fleet. Bombers unrealistically bomb ships, should use torpedo and dive bombers, a new torpedo bomber unit (might get too confusing for AI) for ship attacks and can be carried on carriers.

 

[krokodil]

Can germans artilery be unique - 88 mm flak 36, even tho it was supposed to be AA gun but it was mostly used as artilery or AT gun.

 

[VeteranLurker]

Great news re port airbombing! But the suggestion above to specialize the air units into fighters (multitaskers), torpedo bombers (anti-ship only), and bombers (anti-city, anti-landunit) makes sense to me. It also raises the question: will port airbombing be a new 'choice' (like bombing improvements, etc.)? This way we could choose whether to attack the naval units or the land units in a port.

While we're at it, does it make sense to have a way to specifically attack fighter interceptors? Wasn't that one of the prime details of the RW Battle of Britain -- Germany did not concentrate on taking out the RAF fighters, deciding to bomb the cities instead? Attacking fighter interceptors would have to have two elements: air-to-air (clicking a square and engaging whichever interceptor shows up) and air-to-base (similar to port attack, only against air units stationed at that base/city?). Presumably this is a mission only for fighters, not bombers.

Also, regarding unit specialization, there are nation-specific land and air units. Were there not specific-enough differences among the naval units for some differentiation? The obvious example is battleship designs like the Bismarck and Yamato being superior to those of other nations (also presumably more expensive). Of course nation-specific graphics would be nice also.

 

[LingLinsRevenge]

A suggestion:
I think that Dale has a very good point that asking for a new unit (to do "this special thing", bomb ships, carry supplies, 88mm flak, etc ) is hard to do --

Lets see if we can figure out ways to extend the game without creating a special unit for every thing -- because, the AI cannot deal with it, and the graphical overhead, art work demands, etc will become impossible i.e.
if we put in torpedo bombers, then we need three levels (basic, advanced, modern), for each CIV (USA, UK, German, Italian, Japan, etc, etc) that is ALOT of work --
Then of course people will say WHAT ABOUT dive bombers --- I can see where Dale would not want to open that can o' worms.

So the question to me is can we get the stuff we want within the constraints of Civ 4, and Dale's willingness to add stuff.

For example, if we create a promotion of Naval attack --
Lets say --
200% against ships
Ship Kill
25% attack against fighters
50% defend against fighters

Only 1 graphic element is required --
and I am guessing that the AI programming might not be too bad (The AI seems to be good at selecting best unit for attacking, probably need to tell it to produce these planes for CVs)
Hey, nothing is ever simple with AI --

 

[VeteranLurker]

Ah, yes, I forgot about the balance though I have read the threads about slow performance and AI confusion with new units. It does make sense to do a naval attack promotion for fighters instead of creating a new unit. Perhaps even the battleship specialization could be handled with promotions, much like the winter-effect for Russian infantry?

But I think the attack-interceptors/attack-airbases thing would have to be handled as an option for fighters to choose as a mission. There could be a promotion(s) that would make it more effective.

Whether the AI can handle this is a different question, one I cannot address too deeply.

 

[VeteranLurker]

Before I forget, does it make sense for anti-air units to be able to attack ground units? I have had the AI try this in the beta-3 version, and it wasn't even counterattacking from a city to break a siege (actually, it was attacking a city). Shouldn't these be defense-only, like machine guns in the vanilla game?

 

[LingLinsRevenge]

Thought about the history of the naval war in Europe some last night --
What prevented the British Navy being used the way I am doing it --

I see two things preventing capital ships from coming close to the coast – submarines and planes

If we look at the Battle of Calabria – we see that the Italian High Command would not commit capital ships without destroyer escort – Indeed, it would have been considered criminal to commit capital ships anywhere without destroyers (it was not done until late in the war (US Navy sends out Indianapolis, and look how that turned out)

In the Med, or the North Atlantic – no way –

Dale has added the harbour bombing which is critical I think – but lets continue on this path –

One of the most important dynamics of the Naval War in Europe – the Brits never had enough destroyers – In RtW – I never use them. So one of the important aspects would be to fix the relationship between subs, capital ships and destroyers –
The first way is to alter the relationships between the ship’s strengths

Proposal –
Subs -- very strong against Capital ships (BB, CA, CV) +200%
-- weak against destroyers 50%
Destroyers -- strong against subs +50%
Capital Ship -- cannot see subs, cannot attack subs
Transports – should not attack and I think a defense of 15 is high – they should be like workers – dead if attacked, last unit to defend -- Currently the AI will run around attacking subs and destroyer with stacks of Transports – YUCK
Transports cannot attack – and max defend of 3

The above changes force all transports to be escorted – and prevents transport strike forces --

This would go along way to fixing the problem – however, there are some problems with this – In the Pacific war – the US subs were handicapped by the torpedoes not working – maybe the way to handle this is that the base Sub strength is low – but Germany and Italy get Sub experience from Naval Yards –

Or a Quest that is triggered after USA builds 10 subs --then must sink five transports –
Then all US subs get a promotion that restores attack stength



To add historical flair, and show how we might use elements other than new units:

Two new elements
A new Espionage mission
Sink ships in Harbor
This is modeled after the Italian frogman attack(s) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decima_Flottiglia_MAS#Chronicle_of_Operations
in Alexandria harbor
or the attack on the Tirpitz in Norway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_commando_frogmen

A New random event –
History – German U boat in Scapa Flow (U-47)
Sub infiltrates harbor
Requirement
No destroyers in Harbor
Capital ships in Harbor
Result – 1-2 capital ships sunk (double amount if no Naval base)

Advantage here is that you must build have destroyers with your Capital fleets to prevent this sort of attack –

These changes would nicely represent the problems the British faced with destroyer shortages –

 

[LingLinsRevenge]

But I think the attack-interceptors/attack-airbases thing would have to be handled as an option for fighters to choose as a mission. There could be a promotion(s) that would make it more effective.

Yes -- I agree--
Having the mission for fighters to attack CAP would be good --

Having a promotion available later in the war (maybe as a result of Advanced C3) -- This would nicely model the later war --

This would work out as -- Early war with out promotion -- Air superiority missions not as effective -- With Advanced C3 -- very effective --

And have the CAP attack promotion stack with Interception promotion
But make the naval / ground attacks weaker (-25%) ??

 

[VeteranLurker]

I definitely agree about the subs. I posted elsewhere that an earlier game as Germany I never even bothered to send ships into the North Atlantic. In part that was also due to subs being absolutely useless, other than for early surveillance or delivering spies. The only use I've found for them is to take out ships that have already been severely damaged by capital ships or by planes. Even so, they don't fare well. Even with promotions they are not very strong. I like the ideas of increasing sub attack strength against capital ships and adjust capital ships and destroyers accordingly. I almost never build destroyers currently since they have little to do -- they can see subs which are then easily destroyed. Harbor attacks for subs would be excellent, with destroyer/base deterrent -- wasn't it a destroyer that stopped a Japanese sub at Pearl Harbor?

I also have encountered the transport-attack, which is quite unrealistic and quite annoying. Dunno what defense strength it should have, but it should probably have some positive number like 5 or so. It may be enough just to remove their attack ability.

I too have been pondering the ineffectiveness of spies. There should be some way to gain experience, through both espionage and counter-espionage and perhaps some unique building (and perhaps just by going undetected -- mine are always disappearing before they even attempt anything). The quest idea is intriguing to expand not only for spies but in general (e.g., commando-type raids of certain squares, air raids, etc.). There should also be something for spies to do after the war starts (or maybe I am just uninformed about what else they can do, since they can no longer sabotage?).

 

[LingLinsRevenge]

Spies are very powerful in the basic game, but less so in RtW --
But the best way to win as the Russia I am told is to do a spy heavy build -- and go after Axis oil supply --

There have been bg with spies and great spies --
In the base game -- Great Spies are invulnerable --
Regular spies can be attacked by counter esp

In RtW first release
All SPies were visible to all units

In second / third release
visiblity problem solved -- but Great Spies can still be attacked by counter esp

 

[LingLinsRevenge]

Thinking about Transports --
No Attack for sure

Defense --
Argument for -- transport counter represents a fleet of transports -- (five units load)
Thus some part of fleet will make it -- so some defense is good
(the result of an attack on undefended fleet would be loss of some but not all) ?

Argument against -- cargo is not reduced -- thus if wounded transport fleet makes it -- all units arrive -- complete vulnerability forces the player to escort transports

Given the map -- there are too many places where transports can move from place to place without facing attack (which will change soon- yay) I would say -- while the argument for defense is good -- no defense forces the player into the strategic choice --

OH -- cool spy mission -- Naval Codes -- location of target's ships !!!!
all of them would be over powered (especially in Pacific) -- but maybe choose class of ships (BB, CV, Subs, Transports, not DD or CA)
Especially when combined with Jagodon's idea about ships not being visible

 

[LingLinsRevenge]

Speaking of Jagordon's message -- there are alot of merit in there

Make ships invisible to units unless in a coastal waters (as opposed to open ocean) except for ships

Yes -- except ships and planes

Give carrier ablility to see ships for a little more distance (to represent recon planes

CAP should give better sight -- but there is a recon mission for all planes so maybe not

Give destroyers a slightly stackable air defense to represent a destroyer screen to protect against planes (no major ship was without one).

Agree

Ships immune against collateral damage, since when does a bomber attack a whole fleet.

Agree

Bombers unrealistically bomb ships, should use torpedo and dive bombers, a new torpedo bomber unit (might get too confusing for AI) for ship attacks and can be carried on carriers

Covered above -- but the thinking for me is that bomber would not be able to get the ship attack promo -- the fighter range and attack strenght are more aligned with attack aircraft
P-51 closer to Dauntless than B-17
and fighters can be placed on CVs --

And one other thing to really get the Battle for the Atlantic going -- when you get one of the medium technologies -- give bombers ability to attack subs -- until then -- bomber cannot attack subs

Spoiler :

(from Wikpedia -- Additionally, new weapons were designed for use by aircraft, rapidly increasing their importance in fighting submarines. The development of the FIDO (Mk 24 mine) anti-submarine homing torpedo in 1943 (which could be dropped from aircraft), was a significant contributor to the rising number of German sub sinkings.
)

 

[Dale]

Great ideas, but unfortunately I dread having to write an AI to handle them.

However, here's some changes I made:
- Port airbomb is missions similar to other city airbomb missions.
- AA units defense only.
- Transports defense only.
- Ships can be bombed to zero instead of 50% (not the "lucky shot" concept).
- Subs get bonus versus BB, CA, CV.
- Destroyers get bonus versus subs.
- Ships now collateral immune.

 

[VeteranLurker]

These changes sound great, and something that can be playtested to see how the balance is while you contemplate the bigger issues.

 

[LingLinsRevenge]

Dale,
The changes are great -- I will definitely play this out for you as GB and Italy --

Of the many suggestions I have had, you have gotten the most important IMO -- and I am very happy --

In the spirit of simple changes that might have a big impact --
The only two allied health resources on the map are the fishes at Malta and the fishes at Gilbralter

I find these placements are strange -- I propose you move them for reasons historical and game play --
Historical -- One of the biggest fisheries in the world is the Grand Banks of a New England / Canada
Game Play -- We need a reason to fight a Battle of the Atlantic -- putting health resources in Canada might help this --

Another change -- Currently, two are available -- fishes and the naval harbor gives a health bonus for fishes -- so two

I have read your reasons for not have many health resources on the map -- this works for me --

But given that I want to represent some of the strategic / political ascpect of the war -- how about the following:

Move one or both of the fishes to Canadian waters --
Give US two Crab resources -- This gives the the possiblity of trade between the Aliies of health resources -- and a reason for the Axis to send subs to the US East Coast

To balance-- remove the health benefiit of the Naval Harbor
This would give a bit more health to the Allies (inland cities could get 2 health)

But it would give a pay off for the Axis to fight the Battle of the Atlantic --

I am guessing that the base AI might understand this, but likely not -- but the base game Naval AI is way better these days --
But it gives a German or Italian human player a viable strategic goal -- cut off the trans Atlantic trade! -- and the Allied AI will certainly try to counter / fight back

Finally -- a simple solution to the Kiel Canal issue -- Put a fort 1 west of Bremen (I think) this would make the British blockade of the Skagerack less useful -- and ships can travel through forts

 

[LingLinsRevenge]

A final thing --
I am very excited about the special event concept of sub attacks in harbor (as a special event, not an actual movement of a sub into the harbor)
I see that that there is a good tutorial on creating special events -- I will see if I can do it -- (not a good progammer, but I can hack around a bit)

If I get something to work -- I will send to you for your consideration --

 

[VeteranLurker]

Can you point me to the reasons for limiting health resources on the map? I didn't find it in a quick perusal of these threads. If it is to keep the cities from mushrooming to huge populations, that makes sense. I like the idea of crabs/fish off the North American coast as an incentive for Axis sub activity and Allied patrols, especially if the USA is already exporting them to UK/France at the beginning of the scenario.

 

[LingLinsRevenge]

Try this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=238420

 

[VeteranLurker]

Tried two games over the weekend, one as USSR one as Germany, both using beta-3 1938-start on Prince level I think it was. The AI is certainly more competent than before. Finland, while not a major power, put on a fierce defense/counterattack at Helsinki during the Winter War. And the Allies tried two large amphibious assaults in NW Germany soon after the Sept1939 DoW.

I've read elsewhere about the inevitable boredom of the 1936 historical start. Is there any way to incorporate the Spanish Civil War into that timeframe? I don't know enough of the history of it, other than that the Axis supported Franco, but perhaps this is a stage for quests/events (since the outcome is already historically determined)? "Gift a stuka to Franco, receive X"?

 

[VeteranLurker]

Another anti-air glitch: AA units are currently (beta-3) able to intercept air attacks while loaded inside a transport at-sea. I don't think there was anything else within range.