TOS V3.05 PBEM "Cartwheel"

[Misfit_travel]

Hey Guys, Just getting back online. Sorry I wasn't able to complete my turn last night. The storms kicked back up and it was pretty rugged.

So ET let me get this right. If I am unable to complete my turn in one sitting, and I hit the save and exit, I will be able to load the save and resume where I left off? Because when I hit save and exit I thought I saw where it said to email the game to Misfit.

Anyhow, I plan to get started now and complete my first turn.

Sully

In PBEM, you only get 1 shot at playing the turn in its entirety. Once you save your turn, you cannot go back.

Its hard for the first couple of turns because of the sheer amount of decisions to make, but after that it gets better.

My typical turn 1 for the Japanese can take as long as 3 hours to play. (But that's because I'm an anal individual who works out probable combat possibilities before moving units. It takes forever, but the results speak for themselves)......

Misfit

 

[eric_A]

I have to say that I agree with aksully with regard to reporting. I'd prefer generalized statements like:

Transport W of Truk sunk by naval combat

or

DD E of Truk sunk by aircraft


Dive and Torpedo bombers can be based on land or carrier, so who's to know where they came from in the first place? (Besides your opponent can count, so if there was aircraft bombardment and there are no suitable land bases nearby, they'd have to have come from a carrier somewhere).

A unit damaged or destroyed by naval combat could be by sub or other surface ship. If the opponent really wants to know, they can send air or naval units into the last known position to find out.

I'd like a little more "fog of war" approach. Its likely that people playing the scenario after us won't be quite so detailed about turn reporting. Let's simulate how we'd anticipate the scenario being used.

Word to the wise for aksully, you're playing 3 pretty good tacticians so you should expect coordinated activity. Don't assume that we will ever make moves as stupid as the AI. (That's the only mercy offering we'll show you).



Misfit

So will we be reporting what attacking units were destroyed?

 

[aksully]

I'd like a little more "fog of war" approach. Its likely that people playing the scenario after us won't be quite so detailed about turn reporting. Let's simulate how we'd anticipate the scenario being used.

That was my point. I wasn't trying to be un-coperative.

Word to the wise for aksully, you're playing 3 pretty good tacticians so you should expect coordinated activity. Don't assume that we will ever make moves as stupid as the AI. (That's the only mercy offering we'll show you).



Misfit, Thanks for the tip but I fully understand that I am up against very tough and united opponents. I don't give a plug nickle for my chances! What really hurts is the PH strike as it is managed by the computer. Sure I can send 18 potential strikes against PH but the computer wastes at l/4 to 1/3 strikes on killing PH citizens, the bank, etc. I do have a solution to this which I will address at the conclusion of our play testing of 3.05. Expect the save via email later this aft Misfit.

 

[Misfit_travel]

So will we be reporting what attacking units were destroyed?

My input on this is if you attacked with a unit and it was destroyed (but the defender was not), then you have to fess up what you attacked with.

Any other opinions?

Misfit

 

[El_Tigre]

My input on this is if you attacked with a unit and it was destroyed (but the defender was not), then you have to fess up what you attacked with.

That's my opinion, too. And I like the simple distinction between "sunk by naval
combat" and "sunk by aircraft".

What about bombing runs on land tiles? In my opinion, aerial bombardment must
be distinguished from artillery bombardment. Should the attacker report the
model of aircraft, too?

 

[eric_A]

My input on this is if you attacked with a unit and it was destroyed (but the defender was not), then you have to fess up what you attacked with.

Any other opinions?

Misfit

Then there is the case where you attack a stack of units, and you only
destroy some of them. This is getting too complicated!! I would prefer either:
A - "tell all" approach, or
B - only list enemy units destroyed, and make the other guy guess!

Let's take a vote; I vote B

 

[El_Tigre]

Then there is the case where you attack a stack of units, and you only
destroy some of them. This is getting too complicated!! I would prefer either:
A - "tell all" approach, or
B - only list enemy units destroyed, and make the other guy guess!

Let's take a vote; I vote B

"Attacked stack near Nanning: killed 4 infantry, lost 1 tank and 1 Nipp. Infantry"
doesn't sound too complicated to me.

(I guess that's the "tell all" approach, so I vote A)

 

[aksully]

Well I'm getting started so we should decide. You guys have done this before and I haven't in terms of PBEM so let me ask the question....what is the purpose of this summary? Is it part of assessing the scenario's playability or is it just a "nice to know what happened thing"? I guess my only concern is its alot of "book-keeping". But if its necessary for the evaluation of the scenario then I'm willing to record the best I can. But bear with me cause the PH strike could have as many as 18 attacks!

I may need to apologize in advance for being grumpy and slow...the flu has hit me pretty hard last nite and today. On top of that I developed an allergic reaction to my cough killer and/or antibiotic and I'm in a pretty sorry state! The game is at least keeping mind off of how bad I'm feeling when I'm awake enough to play! But not to worry...I'll get it done today!
Sully

 

[eric_A]

Well I'm getting started so we should decide. You guys have done this before and I haven't in terms of PBEM so let me ask the question....what is the purpose of this summary? Is it part of assessing the scenario's playability or is it just a "nice to know what happened thing"? I guess my only concern is its alot of "book-keeping". But if its necessary for the evaluation of the scenario then I'm willing to record the best I can. But bear with me cause the PH strike could have as many as 18 attacks!

Sully

Without the summary you'd have to keep track of the locations of all
your units to know if one went missing.

 

[Misfit_travel]

I vote "b" as well. Just tell what you killed, not how you killed it. That's less work for everyone and it doesn't make the player have to memorize where all his units are.

That's a fair compromise.

(As for the 18 units attacking Pearl, no worries, you'll have considerably less when I'm done with them......)

Misfit

 

[El_Tigre]

I may need to apologize in advance for being grumpy and slow...the flu has hit me pretty hard last nite and today. On top of that I developed an allergic reaction to my cough killer and/or antibiotic and I'm in a pretty sorry state! The game is at least keeping mind off of how bad I'm feeling when I'm awake enough to play! But not to worry...I'll get it done today!
Sully

I'm not worried about the scenario, aksully, I'm worried about you! Don't start
the scenario only because you feel constrained to start it now. If it
distracts you, fine, but if you would rather like to stay in bed then by all
means stay in bed!

Oh, and I hope my Allies won't curse me for saying this, but you might want
to attack Pearl Harbor with even more than 18 units...

 

[Misfit_travel]

I'll remember you said that El Tigre when we meet head to head in the Kamikaze tournament......

I agree with El Tigre. Get better and don't force yourself to play the turn. 1st turn is critical to the Japanese. Do it when you feel up for it.

Misfit

 

[eric_A]

Sully:
I agree with the others, that first turn is brutal, get some rest if
you need to.

 

[aksully]

Thanks Guys! I must admit I felt a lot of pressure to get this going! I had a very rugged day yesterday but felt well enough to keep going last night until I crapped out again. So I left the computer on overnight since I couldn't save it. I wake up to a tremendous thunderstorm around 3 am. I actually prayed that the power wouldn't go out! Anyhow I have finished and sent the file to Misfit!!!!!

As you all know the Jap first turn is huge but it was further complicated by the new rule changes which for the most part will really add to the complexity yet realism in many ways. But for the short term I had to overcome 'previous patterns of behavior' and that slowed me down too.

I'm going to get on with a summary of move one in a little bit. Overall, I feel ambivalent towards what I accomplished and what I didn't with turn one. I deliberately violated several key tenents of war. Primarily because I sense the joint interactions of your combined forces which computer AI doesn't do. This is a new "opening gambit" for me and time will tell if it was a success or not. The map as then=y say is, "a bit messy"!

Gotta run to the drugstore for a couple of things. But when I get back I'll get the summary done re combat ops. Quick tidbits for you till I get back...PH Attack>4 BBs sunk, PI attacked, Hong Kong falls, Force Z sunk, China a nightmare!
More to follow!
Sully

 

[aksully]

Actually for all the time and effort turn one took there were'nt that many losses nor indeed actions. This is attributable to movement changes. I'll discuss that after summarizing actions.

Began not with PH but with the attack on Force Z....
Prince of Wales and Repulse sunk by land based aircraft and sea action.
Japs lose 1 Kate.

PH Attack...
4 BB's sunk, F4F destroyed, several more ships damaged, 2-PH citizens killed, Factory and Barracks destroyed by air and ship attacks.
Japs lose 1 Zero and 1 Val.

Taiyuan, China Action.... 1 Chinese MGB destroyed.

Hong Kong Action...HK Garrison destroyed. Hong Kong taken and occupied.

Sian, China Action...Chinese MGB 2 SQ(Squares) E of Sian destroyed.

Aparri, PI Action...51st Phil Div Destroyed and Aparri occupied by naval amphib
forces.

Manila Action...US Tank Regiment Destroyed by Jap Armor.

Davoa Action...Garrison damaged by air attack. Jap Para lands west of Davoa.
US Heavy Cruiser 2 SQ W of Davoa heavily damaged by air attack.

Sibu Action...Commonwealth (CW) Bomber and Fighter destroyed by naval gunfire. Jap Para's land near Sibu.

Bhuket Action...CW Inf Div destroyed and city occupied by Jap land forces.

Kuala Lampur Action...11th Ind Div NW of KL destroyed by Jap land forces.

Sully

 

[aksully]

Ok Here's some implications I found for the Jap player 1st turn and game changes;

First,Eric I think the changes you made were overall right on. Particularly eliminating the airlift option except for paratroopers. Civ 3 Airlift capabilities is entirely unrealistic. Removing it will enhance the sea movement of what this game is all about.

Now there are two Civ 3 game limitations that really hurts a TOS-type of scenario.

First, Not being able to place transports with loaded troops using the editor is a true shortcoming in the game mechanics. This severely cripples any kind of WWII Scenario involving amphip operations. This is very true for TOS. Not having loaded transports in historic locations prior to Dec 7th greatly limits the playability of a "Historical" type scenario. This is my strongest recommendation to fix. This inability will give the Allies a huge advantage they didn't have. My solution would be to have a one sq amphib staging isle placed in the appropriate locations. This would allow the editor to place the number of transports and troops close enough to the historical landing sites so the troops can be loaded, transported, and unloaded at their objectives on turn one. This would only be used for the Turn one Jap. As soon as the troops are loaded then the site can be "Abandonded"...a one time, turn one use. Yes it gives the Japanese an edge...but it was the edge they had historically and its a world of hurt for the Allies!

2nd issue is the Civ3 Attack function. We pick a target and combat happens. I'm ok with that. But the Pearl Harbor (PH) attack is severely limited by the game combat generator. PH was a precision strike. Really the only one of its kind during WWII until Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Jap pilots had stationary targets in known locations that they had practiced hundreds of hours attacking. The only thing not there...were the carriers. WHen we attack in Civ3, all the "things" that can be damaged in a square are somehow filtered in and results generated. That can't be avoided unless we create a new PH map. It would have the ships in ocean squares surrounded by the land mass of Oahu. You could have Hickam and Wheeler Airfields and a harbor location. The ships would be in rows in water squares. I think this would be a very realistic addition to any TOS-type of scenario. This is not about an attack "missing its target". That's realistic. But planes destroying the Marketplace, Bank, etc of Pearl Harbor???? That's unrealistic and a new Oahu map would be fantatastic! Anyhow, just some thoughts to consider.
Now I await and ponder how bad the "Allied retribution" will be!

I'm feeling a lot better today that is until I see how badly you guys maul me!
Sully

Sully

 

[eric_A]

2nd issue is the Civ3 Attack function. We pick a target and combat happens. I'm ok with that. But the Pearl Harbor (PH) attack is severely limited by the game combat generator. PH was a precision strike. Really the only one of its kind during WWII until Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Jap pilots had stationary targets in known locations that they had practiced hundreds of hours attacking. The only thing not there...were the carriers. WHen we attack in Civ3, all the "things" that can be damaged in a square are somehow filtered in and results generated. That can't be avoided unless we create a new PH map. It would have the ships in ocean squares surrounded by the land mass of Oahu. You could have Hickam and Wheeler Airfields and a harbor location. The ships would be in rows in water squares. I think this would be a very realistic addition to any TOS-type of scenario. This is not about an attack "missing its target". That's realistic. But planes destroying the Marketplace, Bank, etc of Pearl Harbor???? That's unrealistic and a new Oahu map would be fantatastic! Anyhow, just some thoughts to consider.
Now I await and ponder how bad the "Allied retribution" will be!

I'm feeling a lot better today that is until I see how badly you guys maul me!
Sully

Sully

Glad to hear your feeling better. I like the idea of placing the ships outside
the city. But you do know that if planes are placed on airfields they cannot
be damage by bombardment? Another civ bug. That is why we introduced
the 4 air unit limit for airfields.

 

[aksully]

That would be ok for PH...but Eric..I need to recheck...I need to make sure I don't have more than 4. I think I'm ok, but I'll watch that for sure on turn 2. I sent Misfit the saved file this morning around 10 CST. I haven't heard from him if he got it ok.

Sully

 

[Misfit_travel]

Turn sent onto Eric_A. (Sorry, had the day from hell at work).

Well.....

You paid for your attack on Pearl. 1 Japanese Elite BB sunk, 2 DDs also sunk. No USA losses.

Killed your Paratrooper at Davao.

Killed your Tank, captured and spiked your artillery at Manila. Sank a DD outside Manila.

Everybody running like hell to get away from the Japs.....

Misfit

 

[Misfit_travel]

Airfields have a limit of 4, but did we agree to any limit in cities / airports?

Misfit