[C3C] The Nine Conquests

[Samson]

WWII Pacific is the scenario I have the least experience with... Why Japan? Isn't the US the strongest faction in this scenario, both in weapons as well as in production capacity?
But after I had France in the Napoleon scenario, I might be game for a more difficult challenge... I remember my last attempt was with the Common Wealth a few decades ago..., but I can't remember, whether I even finished that one, as it was dragging on very slowly...
Perhaps China might be an option, or would this be hopeless on Deity?

I am no where your level in Civ 3, but I have played WWII Pacific scenario a few times, though on lower levels. I think Japan is the strongest. The US has limited land and nowhere near the capital to capture. It also has its Forbidden Palace in Manila, which is likely to be captured quickly if you do not ensure it survives. Another disadvantage is that is starts without amphibious warfare (and the paratroopers tech, but I do not use them much). Japan starts with more land, and has the relatively weak China just next door to give it even more.

However, I expect it to be one of the easiest for you, as the AI is so bad at naval air war, and the deity production matters less as everyone starts with so many units.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

I'm new to the Forum but have been lurking for some time.

Welcome to CFC!

 

[Ozymandias]

One Of Our Own, using the handle "Suede," has a Civ 3 YouTube channel, including (FWIW) -

.. And I've no idea why it's labelled "Unavailable,” as I’m watching it as I type:

Civ 3's "Conquest" scenarios ranked completely (un)objectively​

 

[Samson]

This video is unavailable

 

[Ozymandias]

This video is unavailable

Odd: this is the 2nd time I've been unable to embed a YouTube video here ...

... After you type in the URL "YouTube.com," add, "/watch?v=wfrOX6svCzI&list=PLCIXBEXEt3zaYQmH-qjF5GwhxqGsL9bep&index=27"

 

[Lanzelot]

I started the final Conquest: WW II Pacific!

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Ooh good luck!

 

[Quintillus]

But who will you be playing?!

I agree with Samson that Japan is the strongest; Japan on Conquest 9 is my old Sid victory to date. They have a heavy advantage at the outset, and can use it to quickly seize a lot of victory points (both capture points, and ongoing control points), and can often unleash their starting advantage before the production bonus of Sid difficulty has a significant effect.

Of course, in real life, being able to quickly gain control of Indochina and the Dutch East Indies didn't mean indefinite control, but if you only need to have 35,000 victory points... it may be good enough.

I probably play the U.S. the least (or second-least, after Japan) in this scenario, simply because they are so far away from the action.

I'd be interested to hear a historian's perspective on the relative expenditure on the European versus the Pacific front by the U.S. in WWII. Of course the aircraft carriers were tremendously expensive, but my guess would be the opposite - that the majority of expenditures were on the European and North African fronts. Not necessarily on U.S. armed forces, but including Lend-Lease as well, which includes thousands of tanks, trucks, and (probably? less sure about this one) planes. The Soviets pushed back the Germans in the winter of '41-'42 on their own, but by the next winter large amounts of Lend-Lease from the U.S. had arrived in the USSR, and large amounts went to Britain as well.

Who contributed the most in Europe... that's a fraught question. I'm inclined to say overall, the USSR, due to the tremendous cost in human lives. Intuitively Britain gets the second nod due to the duration of their fight, although in terms of industrial output the answer is likely the U.S., and the U.S. may even eclipse the Soviet Union in terms of materiel produced. Like in the Pacific, there's also a "pre-war buildup versus post-war production" difference; the British and Japanese had advantages in pre-war buildup, but the U.S. was called the Arsenal of Democracy for a reason.

Whoever you play, may the RNG be with you!

 

[tjs282]

Psst, Quint, check the contents-list on page 1 of the thread...

 

[Lanzelot]

I'd be interested to hear a historian's perspective on the relative expenditure on the European versus the Pacific front by the U.S.

In an early meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill (can't remember which one -- the one where they met on a Battleship halfway between US and GB?), they agreed on the strategy "Hitler first". BTW, that must have been a major concession by Roosevelt, considering that Pearl Harbor was a real blow to the US and caused a major public outcry, while Germany did not pose any threat to the US at all, so it would have been only natural to go after Japan first to pay them back. But "Hitler first" made sense, because the British Islands at that time where still in grave danger due to the U-Boot war that threatened to starve them. So if you want to keep your ally alive, so he can help you for the rest of the war, it made perfect sense to first concentrate on the European/North-African theater.

However, whenever I read accounts of the Pacific War, I am surprised by the vast amount of resources the US put into it, despite the promise to put the main effort into the European War! Just one example: the US started the war with 4 carriers, of which one (Yorktown) was lost at Midway, end ended the war with way over 100 carriers! The Japanese started the war with 6 carriers, of which 4 were lost at Midway, and never really recovered from that defeat. (They did build a few new carriers in the course of the war, but not over 100 like the US...)
Imagine building 100+ new carriers plus the required aircraft for the Pacific War, while at the same time you promised "ok, we'll put that war on the back-burner until Hitler is finished"...
Of course the production for the European front as support for the British and Soviets and then for the invasions in North Africa, Sicily, Italy and France, and for the bomber fleet that bombed Germany was immense, but my impression is that the production for the Pacific front was not that much less?!

 

[Lanzelot]

BTW: I have two open questions, perhaps someone who already played the Pacific Scenario can answer them:

• If a fighter on a carrier is given the "Air Superiority" mission, does it then really attack incoming bombers? Or does that only work for land-based fighters?
• How does The Bomb need to be transported? Can it be air-lifted from airport to airport? Can it be put in a transport? Does it need to be loaded on a carrier?
  I need to know, so I can prepare a ship-chain in advance, in case it is needed...

 

[tjs282]

Fighters can do A-S missions from a Carrier, but (I think) you might have to take the Carrier(s) out to sea before activating their Fighter-squadrons, to avoid accidentally leaving the planes behind in port (pretty sure I've done that in more than one epic-game... ).

Also, for unpatched C3C, you will need to set the AS Fighter-mission at least 2 (inter)turns before you expect to need it -- or you'd better have some boats with a decent AA-rating covering your Carrier(s) as well.

Can't help with the Bomb question, sorry: the only time I played as the US, I didn't get to finish building it before Japan won on VPs.

 

[choxorn]

I wanna say that there was some kind of ship or plane unit that can transport the bomb? I think it's in the Civilopedia entry on the bomb but it's been ages since I've read it.

 

[tjs282]

Doesn't the "Heavy Bomber" unit act as an Air transport?

IIRC, Firaxis used the B-29 as the model for it, so it should...

 

[Lanzelot]

I just read the "real life" story: the main parts of Little Boy were transported to Tinian Island by the Heavy Cruiser USS Indianapolis, which on the way back was sunk by a Japanese submarine. Of the 1195 crewmen, only 316 survived. 300 went down with the ship, while the rest of the casualties died of dehydration, salt-water poisoning and shark attacks. (Because of the top secrecy of the mission, the loss of the Indianapolis was noticed only 4 days after the sinking, so the surviving men had to swim in the water for 4 days, before being rescued. In Steven Spielberg's 1975 movie "Jaws" there is a scene, where one of the characters - a survivor of the Indianapolis - tells this story, and it is actually quite true to history!) Anyway, according to Wikipedia, the sinking of the Indianapolis resulted in the greatest loss of life at sea from a single ship in the history of the US Navy. Isn't it kind of spooky, that this was the ship that transported the first atomic weapon in mankind's history?!

The Wikipedia site for the Indianapolis claims that the Uranium for Little Boy was also on board of the Indianapolis, but I have read other accounts, that in fact only one of the Uranium components was on the USS Indianapolis, while the other one was delivered to Tinian Island via a C-54 Skymaster transport aircraft. (Little Boy had two "sub-critical" Uranium components, which at ignition time were "shot into one another" by conventional explosives to form a critical mass.) Actually, it makes sense to transport these two sub-critical masses separately to avoid any accidents...

Anyway, all parts were then assembled on Tinian Island and flown from there to Hiroshima by the B-29 "Enola Gay" of Colonel Paul Tibbets on Aug 6th 1945.

PS: I just checked the .bic, and the Atomic Bomb has the two Air Missions "Bombing" and "Re-Base" activated, just like a bomber. So it should be possible to re-base it to any town on the map. It is also marked as "Tactical Missile" with an operational range of 12.

 

[Ruin]

Who contributed the most in Europe... that's a fraught question. I'm inclined to say overall, the USSR, due to the tremendous cost in human lives. Intuitively Britain gets the second nod due to the duration of their fight, although in terms of industrial output the answer is likely the U.S., and the U.S. may even eclipse the Soviet Union in terms of materiel produced. Like in the Pacific, there's also a "pre-war buildup versus post-war production" difference; the British and Japanese had advantages in pre-war buildup, but the U.S. was called the Arsenal of Democracy for a reason.

The Soviets had a max army size of 14+ million and lost 10 million men. The US had 8+ million (this is counting all Army personnel as being in Europe and all Marines were in the Pacific). The British Army peaked at 2.9 million. They went to war with 200,000 men in their regular Army, so just based on that they didn't contribute very much relatively speaking. "How many divisions does the Pope have?" Stalin asked, but he should have asked it about Churchill.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

The Soviets had a max army size of 14+ million and lost 10 million men. The US had 8+ million (this is counting all Army personnel as being in Europe and all Marines were in the Pacific). The British Army peaked at 2.9 million. They went to war with 200,000 men in their regular Army, so just based on that they didn't contribute very much relatively speaking. "How many divisions does the Pope have?" Stalin asked, but he should have asked it about Churchill.

How many men did the Nazi's field?

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

the surviving men had to swim in the water for 4 days

Is that humanly possible? Or was there debris, Titanic style to float on?

 

[choxorn]

Is that humanly possible? Or was there debris, Titanic style to float on?

They had debris and lifeboats, yes. As Lanzelot noted, a lot of them died over those 4 days despite that.

Certainly it would have been easier to survive swimming at the Indianapolis's wreckage point than the Titanic's because the water is a lot warmer there, but you certainly can't swim continuously for 4 days, either.

 

[vmxa]

Germany sent 3 million into Russia at the start of Barbarossa.