TOS V3.05 PBEM "Cartwheel"

[El_Tigre]

I didn't know about it until I read post#141, too.

 

[aksully]

I see it now there...guess I didn't really read it when posted. Eric, I guess I should have asked for rules before. I printed out what you had attached for TOS 3.0. I don't see anything about land artillery having lethal sea bombardment. I'm guessing you have an earlier set of rules and unit changes/capabilities posted in an earlier TOS doc?
Sully

 

[eric_A]

I see it now there...guess I didn't really read it when posted. Eric, I guess I should have asked for rules before. I printed out what you had attached for TOS 3.0. I don't see anything about land artillery having lethal sea bombardment. I'm guessing you have an earlier set of rules and unit changes/capabilities posted in an earlier TOS doc?
Sully

Looks like I forgot to mention that in the document. I wanted to have
some unit which could act as coastal defence and artillery seemed like
a good choice.

 

[Misfit_travel]

Eric_A is already on record as saying that land artillery will change in version 4. There will be two types; field guns and shore batteries (or something like that).

What happened to you in this game is kinda bogus in my books too. Land artillery shouldn't have lethal sea bombardment. (Let's face it, a 155mm mortar doesn't have the firepower or range to sink any warship).

Misfit

 

[aksully]

Guys,
I'm at a point of dwindling returns...oil not available for two turns, Hanoi gone in a turn, SG's everywhere, arty killing ships....Its a matter of time before the weight of the allies falls upon me. Would it hurt what you're wanting to achieve with this version Eric if we call it here?

I'm willing to go on if there is still more to find out about gameplay. But I gotta go to a short notice function tonight, then a major planned function tomorrow night. My game-time will be very limited until Monday.

Let me know what you all think? I'm very willing to continue to participate in email play with you guys if you so desire. But, at the point in the game we're at, and my time available this weekend...I want you all to know so you're not waiting on me. If you want to resume same game on Monday..I'm good with that too. Let me know? Thanks!
Sully

 

[El_Tigre]

SG?

The dice have been cast in this scenario, yes. Although I think that you
overestimate the Allied position ATM, your situation would steadily decline from
now on. The last turns proved that you learned a lot - and quickly - but the first
turns are too crucial to forgive some tactical mistakes you made.

It's a pity to abandon such a fast-paced and smooth running game. Same
players, new setup?

 

[eric_A]

Version 3.06 is ready to go if you want to give it a test drive,
here are the changes:

TOS V3.06 - Notes

1. Added coastal tiles around US naval reinforcments coming
from the Atlantic Fleet, USS Idaho, Saratoga, etc..
This will delay their arrival in the combat areas.

2. Guam Garrison changed from infantry to ANZAC infantry.

3. Added 1 Jap. transport in Saigon, now Japanese player can conduct
landing in Northern Malaya. Added more MGBs on the China front and
a light tank in Canton.

4. Netherlands:
Can no longer build capital ships (BBs and CVs).
Added fighter unit in Batavia to starting forces.

5. China:
Removed 5 guerillas from start forces, moved some others further back
Can no longer build tanks. Added riflemen "militas" to all front line
cities.

 

[El_Tigre]

Great, I'm game! Can I play either the US or CW? I want to work through every
nation in this scenario.

 

[Misfit_travel]

I'm willing.

Sully's tactical play got much better in the past few turns. I think a restart with the rule tweaks would make for a more balanced game.

Eric_A, I'm concerned about a few things on the build side:

- transports / assault transports are slow to build relative to ships like Destroyers (I wind up cheating by building a DD at the war time rate, then switching back to the transport at the last second)

- Heavy bomber plan wonder takes FOREVER to build

If the US tries to build it, you lose one of your most productive cities for about 24 - 28 turns. That's the equivalent of 6-7 Aircraft Carriers or 24 fighters or 16 dive / torpedo bombers. And then you only get the factory, you have to wait another 4 turns to get your first free heavy bomber.

I don't know if that cost is worth it. Next time around I'd be tempted to live without it, because in the same time I could build 4 CVs and fully equip them with aircraft. That would mean a whole heck of a lot more to the war effort I think.

I'd suggest making the Heavy Bomber Plant the same price as other Military Wonders.

Cheers
Misfit

 

[eric_A]

I'm willing.

Sully's tactical play got much better in the past few turns. I think a restart with the rule tweaks would make for a more balanced game.

Eric_A, I'm concerned about a few things on the build side:

- transports / assault transports are slow to build relative to ships like Destroyers (I wind up cheating by building a DD at the war time rate, then switching back to the transport at the last second)

- Heavy bomber plan wonder takes FOREVER to build

If the US tries to build it, you lose one of your most productive cities for about 24 - 28 turns. That's the equivalent of 6-7 Aircraft Carriers or 24 fighters or 16 dive / torpedo bombers. And then you only get the factory, you have to wait another 4 turns to get your first free heavy bomber.

I don't know if that cost is worth it. Next time around I'd be tempted to live without it, because in the same time I could build 4 CVs and fully equip them with aircraft. That would mean a whole heck of a lot more to the war effort I think.

I'd suggest making the Heavy Bomber Plant the same price as other Military Wonders.

Cheers
Misfit

Transports:
Each DD unit is only 4 ships each about 2000 tons, while a transport unit
is 10 ships of about 10,000 tons each. I takes a lot of ships to sealift 3
divisions. Also, I low-balled the cost because transports to not get the
production bonus for war time mobilzation.

Heavy bombers:
The first B-29 did not fly until late 1942, so 24 turns is about right
at least from a historical point of view. Reducing the cost would make them available too soon. The other option would be to make a new tech after
advanced flight.

Eric

 

[eric_A]

Has anyone noticed that the barrier reef does not show up
on the map when the game is in PBEM mode, or is it just
my computer?

It does show show up in single player mode.

 

[El_Tigre]

Has anyone noticed that the barrier reef does not show up
on the map when the game is in PBEM mode, or is it just
my computer?

It does show show up in single player mode.

For me, it shows up in SP and MP mode. I've never noticed it before, nice
addition!

 

[aksully]

I'm more than willing to play as well. But, I have very little time until Monday. That said we can get started but I kust might not be able to submit a turn until Monday if that's alright? I have no preference in country.

Eric, would it be possible to create or combine rules and scenario info? I feel like I might not know everything about the scenario as I should.

Gameplay comments; First I have to say that TOS is such a huge improvement over the original Civ 3 scenario. It's pretty exciting to see a Kate sink a CV! I bet it was sweet to see the Yamato go down !

I'd like to share a few ideas to consider and will post them shortly.

Sully

 

[aksully]

Observations & Considertations from playing Japan;
In a two week game period Japan needs sufficient forces and transports to land several different forces in the PI in game turn 1. This is not to say the human player has too, but should have the capability to load, transport, and land in Turn 1 at Appari from the north and west (2 separate groups). Land forces from Palau; at Legaspi and Davao again on Turn 1. Then Japan still needs forces and transports at Formosa to land troops (41,000) near Manila (West coast) and 7,000 troops with transports from the Ryukyu Islands landing below Manilla (East coast) in game week #2.

It sounds like you've fixed the Malaya side of troops and transports Eric.

Guerilla Warfare. At least from the recieving side of it...it just seems too strong for WWII. I fully understand the rationale but it wasn't as formidable in China as it turns out in the game. Maybe if you lengthened the time to build it and not have it immediately available to China at the start...it might be more in line. Having a Guerilla be able to take out an arty stacked in a city with other combat troops is pretty unrealistic. If outside and not stacked then thats fine.

Subs: Might want to consider changing the attack number of US subs to reflect their useless torps rather than exp level. That's because the US can then get vets from harbors in early '42. It wasn't until 1943 that they started to get a detonator that worked. I'd let the advanced sub build reflect the better US torp with improved attack numbers. I'd also think about lowering Jap experience at the start from vet to regular.

Transports: 0 attack and lessen defense. 0/0 seems right to me. They should never win a battle against anything! Now the attack transport is different certainly.

I really learned alot from playing this version. Concentration of force is absolutely critical for the Jap player. I can't say enough about the work you've put into this Eric! I am looking forward to playing the next version. Again I appreciate the invite to participate.

Sully

 

[eric_A]

There is a problem with 0 attack factor for transports, if you
run over an invisible sub, you will just get a message saying you
can't attack. So transports with 0 attack factor can be used as
"sub finders". So they must have at least 1 attack, they can
aways ram other ships.

 

[El_Tigre]

Guerilla Warfare. At least from the recieving side of it...it just seems too strong for WWII. I fully understand the rationale but it wasn't as formidable in China as it turns out in the game. Maybe if you lengthened the time to build it and not have it immediately available to China at the start...it might be more in line. Having a Guerilla be able to take out an arty stacked in a city with other combat troops is pretty unrealistic. If outside and not stacked then thats fine.

Removing Artillery from the list of units eligible for the Guerilla's stealth attack
would solve this problem in my opinion.

 

[eric_A]

If Misfit and EL_Tigre are happy with the countries they are
playing, I will switch with Sully and play Japan, Sully gets
the Commonwealth.

Is this OK with everyone?

Also it would be good for the allies to use a common password
so one player can fill in for another.

 

[Misfit_travel]

I'm fine with that.

Something to consider.....

Make city walls a stealth attack barrier (there is a setting for that in the editor). Then give Jap cities city walls. That will prevent the guerillas "suicide" attacks against Jap artillery inside cities.

Misfit

 

[El_Tigre]

If Misfit and EL_Tigre are happy with the countries they are
playing, I will switch with Sully and play Japan, Sully gets
the Commonwealth.

Is this OK with everyone?

Also it would be good for the allies to use a common password
so one player can fill in for another.

Could I play either CW or the US? I would play CH+NL again if no one wants to
switch, but I want to try out all nations in the scenario.

 

[El_Tigre]

Make city walls a stealth attack barrier (there is a setting for that in the editor). Then give Jap cities city walls. That will prevent the guerillas "suicide" attacks against Jap artillery inside cities.

Misfit

...unit the first or second bombardment with Artillery removes the city walls.