Total War 1941 -1945 ToT scenario released

[tootall_2012]

How hard would it be for me to modify this to play under MGE?

Hi Serutan,

Thank you for taking interest in my scenario but as Agricola pointed out it will be A LOT less trouble to go buy a copy of Test of Time. I'm certain you can find some for less than 15$.

If you do decide to purchase the game and play my scenario let me know what you think. I'm always interested to hear players comments, positive or negative (as long as it's constructive ).

 

[tootall_2012]

I took longer than anticipated , but as previously promised, I've completed my latest round of modifications. It isn't so much the modifications themselves, though they were numerous, but the testing of these changes that was time consuming. Nevertheless, here is the list of changes:

• Thanks to Cyrion's suggestion, successfully turned all 'Bunker' units into naval units with a movement factor of zero to prevent the AI from moving them (and significantly increased its defensive factor to offset the 'Naval Unit caught in port' penalty).
• Reinserted multiple bunker units not only to the Japanese home islands but to a number of Pacific islands and in German Occupied Europe (note: no bunkers have been added to single tile islands. Example: Palau is a single tiled island whereas Taipei is not).
• In the case of Japan proper, many of its home island bunker units where homed to the outer islands, making bypassing these islands more costly in terms of invading Japan proper.
TIP: Artillery units ('Field Artillery' and 'M12 GMC') are the weapon of choice against bunker units. They can be assaulted by naval 'Battleship' as well but you are likely to find that tactic more costly in units (it's easier to rebuild a lost artillery unit than a battleship), especially if the bunker is situated on a 'Hill' or 'Jungle' terrain tile.
• All new Japanese naval units are now generated through the event file. This was done to circumvent the 'Bermuda Triangle' bug, which the Japanese AI was particularly vulnerable to.
I can't guarantee 100% that the bug can't still occur. A Japanese naval stack that contains a carrier with an air unit homed to city could still be lost if that air unit's city was captured but it is a much less likely event now.
• All of Japan's naval unit types are created randomly among it's Pacific islands bases (cities). This was done in the hope of increasing the IJN aggressiveness in the Pacific.
There are six possible bases (cities) the units can be generated in. The event file will attempt to place a naval unit in the next available base if one or more of its specified bases was captured.
• Modified the combat value of the 'IJN Carrier' unit to give it a powerful naval attack capability. This is in addition to its ability to carry air units.
• Added two pre-built 'Mine' tiles in America to offset Japan's free event naval units.
• Added one pre-built 'Mine' tile in India to offset Japan's free event naval units.

• I've made significant modifications to the Victory conditions:
- Milan, Rabaul, Palau and Davao are now objective cities
- Prague, Warsaw, Bucharest and Kiev are no longer objective cities (these cities, especially after Yalta, were more considered in the Soviet zone)
- Wonders no longer count in the Victory Point calculation (i.e. no city is worth more than 1 VP)
- Readjusted the total number of objective points the American or British player need to win.

• Removed Germany's 'Fallschirmjäger' unit paradrops flag when playing as the American player. This was done to prevent the German AI from capturing British Home Island cities.
• Increased the initial German OOB in Russia making it more perilous not to send 'Lend-Lease' aid to support that country.
• Reduced by half the American and British first turn naval unit movement factor. This was done to prevent the massacre of the German U-boats that typically occurred on the first turn.

• Corrected on map city spelling for 'Pittsburgh' and 'Addis Abeba'
• Increased the Neutral powers initial OOB but removed its ability to build any new units.
• Made tiles [35,51] and [36,52] deserts to prevent 'Mexican' invasion of Texas
• Opened up the Suez Canal [107,57] when playing as the US player
• Opened up the Panama Canal [46,68] when playing as the British player.
• Added the Azores island and airfield at tile [68,42]
• Added an airfield on the sub-Saharan tile [91,73]
• Added 'Anti-Tank Defenses' improvement (city walls) to all German controlled cities save those cities that are part specifically of the Greater German Reich (including Vienna and Prague)
• NEW HOUSE RULE: It is forbidden to transfer ground units from one naval transport unit ('Freighter' or 'Liberty Ship') to another in mid-ocean. You can transfer your ground unit from one freighter to another in as many ports as you can in one turn (see updated ReadMe for more detailed explanation).
• Made numerous other small changes to the map, major powers starting OOB and the events file
• Made small corrections to the ReadMe file

I hope these changes will enhance the players overall experience of the scenario. You can find all the new game zip files at http://sleague.civfanatics.com/index.php/Total_War_1941_-_1945

 

[techumseh]

Looking forward to playing the new version. Thanks!

 

[techumseh]

I've started a new game as the British, and have now finished the June '42 turn. Overall, it seems easier than the first version. Are there more units in England at the start?

Taking advantage of the AI's inability to take advantage of an opportunity, I shipped my naval units and most of my army to Gibraltar, and attacked North Africa as early as possible. I had heavy air and naval casualties taking Tunis, but otherwise it was pretty easy. I'm now awaiting two batches of American reinforcements. Btw, I still had to defend Gibraltar against a Spanish attack after taking Casablanca and Algiers. Just sayin'.

The Japanese AI seems less aggressive in Burma/India; I still control Mandalay and Rangoon, and no air/naval attacks have materialized on the east coast of India/Ceylon, unlike the previous version. I moved the Indian Ocean fleet from Columbo to Sydney to form the basis of future naval counter-attack against the Japanese, as this is the best way to trigger American reinforcements.

Lend-lease is a puzzle. Given that aid to the Soviets was already underway by the time the scenario starts, why force the US or Brit player to research the tech for the lend-lease trucks? I wonder if it's worth the production to send numbers of them to Russia? Or is it more profitable to build your own units that you control, rather than give them to the incompetent AI? I don't know.

Last (re) suggestion: replace the Ee-wa-show! sound with Banzai! for Japanese marines.

 

[techumseh]

I spoke too soon re: Burma, where a major Japanese ground offensive has developed, taking both Mandalay and Rangoon. Major surface units have appeared south of Pt. Moresby, threatening my forces that have just recaptured Guadalcanal. The Germans have captured Grozny, so I'm moving available ground units into northern Iran in case Baku falls.

 

[techumseh]

Decisive naval battle! HMS Nelson, hurrying north from Sydney, intercepts a large Japanese naval force north of Townsville. Engaging the IJN Yamato, the Nelson sinks the larger Japanese ship and 30 other units. The badly damaged British battleship limps towards Townsville following the battle.

"It is the British Midway", says Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Archibald Techumseh.

 

[tootall_2012]

Hi Techumseh,

I'm always a little reluctant to respond to players enquiries until they've played a full game. In the end, the purposes of the scenario is to see if the player can achieve a 'Decisive Victory' and not necessarily to determine whether certain parts of their campaign was deemed easier than others. Nevertheless, you raised some interesting questions and here are my replies:

I've started a new game as the British, and have now finished the June '42 turn. Overall, it seems easier than the first version. Are there more units in England at the start?

I only added a few extra artillery units to the British OOB to offset the extra bunkers I gave Germany/Japan. In fact, if anything, the game should be more demanding because I increased both the German and Japanese force dispositions overall in this latest update.

Taking advantage of the AI's inability to take advantage of an opportunity, I shipped my naval units and most of my army to Gibraltar, and attacked North Africa as early as possible. I had heavy air and naval casualties taking Tunis, but otherwise it was pretty easy. I'm now awaiting two batches of American reinforcements.

North Africa, which was a Vichy colony, was lightly defended by the French and therefore shouldn't be hard to conquer. Tunis is often a tossup depending on how the AI behaves. Sometimes its sends many troops, sometimes it doesn't.

The main issue with the British, I find, is that they have to make choices. Since they don't have the productive capacity of America they have to choose where they will fight and where they will stand. If you lay the British Home defenses bare to bolster other fronts, you may find yourself with German paratroopers overrunning your cities. If you don't send adequate forces to defend Egypt, you could find yourself in a sticky jam. Australia/India, in particular, have limited forces and require quite some time to build up their forces to 1) repel any invasion force and subsequently 2) go on the offensive (particularly, if like me, you don't use the unit rush buy feature).

Their great advantage is their worldwide network of bases that allows them to redeploy their forces from one theater of operations to another very quickly.

Btw, I still had to defend Gibraltar against a Spanish attack after taking Casablanca and Algiers. Just sayin'.

Of course they attacked you because you attacked their North African cities which are part of the Neutral powers. I can't prevent that from happening. The difference this time is that the Neutral can't build any new units in the game. Every time they lose a unit it is a net loss which means they can't sustain any offensive for long.

Lend-lease is a puzzle. Given that aid to the Soviets was already underway by the time the scenario starts, why force the US or Brit player to research the tech for the lend-lease trucks? I wonder if it's worth the production to send numbers of them to Russia? Or is it more profitable to build your own units that you control, rather than give them to the incompetent AI? I don't know

By December 1941, America was only just entering the war and Britain had only sent a trickle of war material and supplies to Russia to date. It isn't before mid-1942, after setting up the logistical infrastructure to support the effort, that America, in particular, started sending significant supplies to the Soviets. As such, you should see the need to research the technology as the effort required for creating that logistical network.

If you look at the German/Russian casualty list at the end of the game you will quickly notice there was a massive struggle going on between these two nations. Every unit killed on the Russian front is one less unit you have to fight on the Western front. For a mere 20 production points, every Lend-Lease truck you transport to the Soviet Union gives them 2 Motor Troops plus a 100 gold pieces and gains 125/175 gold for yourself (depending if you are playing as the American or British). I would say that's the most cost effective unit in the entire game.

Finally, the very first test game I played back in December saw the Germans overrun Moscow and Gorky by the middle of the game. Before long, I had German atom bombs dropping on my British cities. Ever since that first game, I've tried to make adjustments' to the Soviet defenses and German order of battle to try and strike a delicate balance between the Germans ability to defeat the Soviets and the Russians ability to resist the early German assault. It's not an easy thing to do as there are so many imponderables with regard the AI's behaviour. In the last game I played last week, I successfully transported 28 Lend-Lease trucks to Russia generating for them 56 Motor Troops. Nevertheless, by mid-1944 Germany had killed 35 of them and managed to capture Leningrad. I can't guarantee that not sending Lend Lease aid would have contributed to the further collapse of the Russian defenses but it is a possibility. And the last thing you want to see happen is Germany developing the atom bomb before you do.

So as Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry: "How about it punk. Do you feel lucky? Do you!!"

Decisive naval battle! HMS Nelson, hurrying north from Sydney, intercepts a large Japanese naval force north of Townsville. Engaging the IJN Yamato, the Nelson sinks the larger Japanese ship and 30 other units. The badly damaged British battleship limps towards Townsville following the battle.
"It is the British Midway", says Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Archibald Techumseh.

Even though the Japanese navy starts the game spread out in multiple battle groups all over the Pacific, I've often noticed that a few months after Pearl Harbor that it seems to redeploy a large portion of itself to operate against the British, particularly against India first and then Australia. And though I've seen it operate in stacks of battle groups operating in close proximity to one another (i.e. a stack of destroyers, next to a stack of cruisers, next to a stack of battleships), I've also seen it, as you indicated, mass into one very large battle group of 20-30 ships together.

I've found, particularly, when playing as the American, that the Japanese AI has a tendency to start redeploying it's units closer to Japan when the American navy becomes more active in the Pacific.

Ultimately, the ideal situation would be to make the ocean tiles stackable but then we have the problem of ground units not being destroyed when their naval transports are sunk.

I could also maybe increase the HP of the Yamato battleship to 6 or 7 to make killing it, and any units it is stacked with, harder. I'm opened to suggestions on this one.

Unfortunately, this AI behavior is impossible to control. To be honest when I encounter these flagrant AI game play errors, I sometimes decide not to take advantage of the situation to keep the game challenging (and sometimes I say too bad for you AI ).

 

[techumseh]

Hi Techumseh,

I'm always a little reluctant to respond to players enquiries until they've played a full game. In the end, the purposes of the scenario is to see if the player can achieve a 'Decisive Victory' and not necessarily to determine whether certain parts of their campaign was deemed easier than others. Nevertheless, you raised some interesting questions and here are my replies:

Still, the measure of a scenario is not always just in the final outcome, but how it simulates the various key historical campaigns.

I only added a few extra artillery units to the British OOB to offset the extra bunkers I gave Germany/Japan. In fact, if anything, the game should be more demanding because I increased both the German and Japanese force dispositions overall in this latest update.

That as may be, but having to repeatedly build up artillery, heavy bombers and battleships to take out one bunker after another is not historical, or much fun. Major defensive fortifications have a role in playbalance, but they should be kept to a minimum in favour of mobile defenses and unexpected counter-attacks.

North Africa, which was a Vichy colony, was lightly defended by the French and therefore shouldn't be hard to conquer. Tunis is often a tossup depending on how the AI behaves. Sometimes its sends many troops, sometimes it doesn't.

The main issue with the British, I find, is that they have to make choices. Since they don't have the productive capacity of America they have to choose where they will fight and where they will stand. If you lay the British Home defenses bare to bolster other fronts, you may find yourself with German paratroopers overrunning your cities. If you don't send adequate forces to defend Egypt, you could find yourself in a sticky jam. Australia/India, in particular, have limited forces and require quite some time to build up their forces to 1) repel any invasion force and subsequently 2) go on the offensive (particularly, if like me, you don't use the unit rush buy feature).

Falshirmjaeger's don't jump in the Brit scenario, right?

Their great advantage is their worldwide network of bases that allows them to redeploy their forces from one theater of operations to another very quickly.

Of course they attacked you because you attacked their North African cities which are part of the Neutral powers. I can't prevent that from happening. The difference this time is that the Neutral can't build any new units in the game. Every time they lose a unit it is a net loss which means they can't sustain any offensive for long.

Yes, but it's still ahistorical. Spain didn't attack Gibraltar, and Iran didn't attack India.

By December 1941, America was only just entering the war and Britain had only sent a trickle of war material and supplies to Russia to date. It isn't before mid-1942, after setting up the logistical infrastructure to support the effort, that America, in particular, started sending significant supplies to the Soviets. As such, you should see the need to research the technology as the effort required for creating that logistical network.

If you look at the German/Russian casualty list at the end of the game you will quickly notice there was a massive struggle going on between these two nations. Every unit killed on the Russian front is one less unit you have to fight on the Western front. For a mere 20 production points, every Lend-Lease truck you transport to the Soviet Union gives them 2 Motor Troops plus a 100 gold pieces and gains 125/175 gold for yourself (depending if you are playing as the American or British). I would say that's the most cost effective unit in the entire game.

Interesting. Good point.

Finally, the very first test game I played back in December saw the Germans overrun Moscow and Gorky by the middle of the game. Before long, I had German atom bombs dropping on my British cities. Ever since that first game, I've tried to make adjustments' to the Soviet defenses and German order of battle to try and strike a delicate balance between the Germans ability to defeat the Soviets and the Russians ability to resist the early German assault. It's not an easy thing to do as there are so many imponderables with regard the AI's behaviour. In the last game I played last week, I successfully transported 28 Lend-Lease trucks to Russia generating for them 56 Motor Troops. Nevertheless, by mid-1944 Germany had killed 35 of them and managed to capture Leningrad. I can't guarantee that not sending Lend Lease aid would have contributed to the further collapse of the Russian defenses but it is a possibility. And the last thing you want to see happen is Germany developing the atom bomb before you do.

So as Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry: "How about it punk. Do you feel lucky? Do you!!"

Even better point. So far, I've been lucky.

Even though the Japanese navy starts the game spread out in multiple battle groups all over the Pacific, I've often noticed that a few months after Pearl Harbor that it seems to redeploy a large portion of itself to operate against the British, particularly against India first and then Australia. And though I've seen it operate in stacks of battle groups operating in close proximity to one another (i.e. a stack of destroyers, next to a stack of cruisers, next to a stack of battleships), I've also seen it, as you indicated, mass into one very large battle group of 20-30 ships together.

I've found, particularly, when playing as the American, that the Japanese AI has a tendency to start redeploying it's units closer to Japan when the American navy becomes more active in the Pacific.

Ultimately, the ideal situation would be to make the ocean tiles stackable but then we have the problem of ground units not being destroyed when their naval transports are sunk.

I could also maybe increase the HP of the Yamato battleship to 6 or 7 to make killing it, and any units it is stacked with, harder. I'm opened to suggestions on this one.

Don't bother. It was pure luck. Re: IJN movements, have you considered the use of MOVEUNIT events?

Unfortunately, this AI behavior is impossible to control. To be honest when I encounter these flagrant AI game play errors, I sometimes decide not to take advantage of the situation to keep the game challenging (and sometimes I say too bad for you AI ).

I resemble that remark!

 

[Patine]

In regard to the neutral attacks triggered by invading Vichy territory, I'd just put Vichy France under German control, except for their Southeast Asian and Pacific holdings, which I'd put under Japanese control, because they effectively were in all meaningful ways, at least as I understand it, at least de facto if not on paper. That's my suggestion.

 

[tootall_2012]

Hi Techumseh/Patine,

Still, the measure of a scenario is not always just in the final outcome, but how it simulates the various key historical campaigns.

That's a fair comment but at the same time you have to remember that all scenarios, in essence, are primarily meant to be simulations of specific conflicts and not exact recreations. I agree you should try to be as faithful to the conflict as possible but leave room for variations and different outcomes. In the end, you want to give players the ability to write their own history.

That as may be, but having to repeatedly build up artillery, heavy bombers and battleships to take out one bunker after another is not historical, or much fun. Major defensive fortifications have a role in playbalance, but they should be kept to a minimum in favour of mobile defenses and unexpected counter-attacks.

I understand what you are saying but if you really think about it the Allies were confronted by an endless series of fortifications and defensive lines when fighting the Axis powers during the Second World War.

In Sicily they had to pierce the defensive lines around Mount Etna. In Italy they had to pierce an endless series of defensive lines, i.e. the Hitler, Gothic, Trasimene lines too name but a few. In Western Europe there was the Atlantic Wall and then the Siegfried line on the western border of Germany. It's only really in North Africa, the interior of France after breaking out of Normandy and later Germany after they crossed the Rhine that they ever really fought in open terrain. I believe my game accurately reflects that.

In the Pacific, the Americans had to overrun a succession of very heavily fortified islands: Tarawa, Guam, Saipan, Peleliu, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

It's only really on the Russian front that there was truly open warfare. In that sense, I believe my scenario is not only accurate but historical.

Falshirmjaeger's don't jump in the Brit scenario, right?

Wrong, they can absolutely jump in the British scenario. I only removed the paradrop flag when playing as the American player because Agricola clearly demonstrated that the British AI can at times be totally inept at defending its Home islands. The British human player has no such excuse.

Yes, but it's still ahistorical. Spain didn't attack Gibraltar, and Iran didn't attack India.

The problem is that there is a maximum of 7 possible powers (plus barbarians) in the game, and one of those powers is used to represent all the Neutral nations of the day. Unfortunately, if you attack one of its cities you are essentially declaring war against the entire power.

I could reduce the Neutral's OOB to one unit per city but what if a player decides they want to attack Madrid or Istanbul, for example, to use as bases of operations against the Axis? Should I make it easy for them to do so? Would allowing them to easily overrun these nations be historical?

As we all know, Civilization, though a great game engine, has its limitations and sometimes as designers we simply have to make compromises as I know you are well aware off. Sometimes those compromises work and sometimes not. In this case, I personally find its an acceptable one.

In regard to the neutral attacks triggered by invading Vichy territory, I'd just put Vichy France under German control, except for their Southeast Asian and Pacific holdings, which I'd put under Japanese control, because they effectively were in all meaningful ways, at least as I understand it, at least de facto if not on paper. That's my suggestion.

I originally thought about giving control of these cities to Germany but ultimately decided against it because I didn't want the Germans being able to build any type of units there or to use the cities as a base of operations for its naval or air units. I found that would have been too unhistorical.

 

[tootall_2012]

Don't bother. It was pure luck. Re: IJN movements, have you considered the use of MOVEUNIT events?

I actually have implemented multiple MOVEUNIT events to try and prevent the Japanese navy from loitering around Japan proper but to be honest I'm not certain these commands are faithfully obeyed. Other than that, I'm not certain what other commands I could insert (besides its a moot point because I have like less than 200 or so kb's left in my British event file so there is no more room for any other events).

 

[techumseh]

I could reduce the Neutral's OOB to one unit per city but what if a player decides they want to attack Madrid or Istanbul, for example, to use as bases of operations against the Axis? Should I make it easy for them to do so? Would allowing them to easily overrun these nations be historical?

There are other ways to get at this. At the risk of sounding like I'm contradicting myself on the use of fortress units, they could be a good representation of a tough defense. And they can't wander around attacking other civs. You could also use events to create units if a particular neutral city was captured; either near the captured city, or in the remaining national city, eg. in Ankara if Istanbul is captured. As it is now, the handful of units in neutral countries aren't a significant obstacle if you want to mount moderately determined invasion, but they are annoying if you don't.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Regarding the Japanese Navy, have you considered creating a unit like "IJN Taskforce" that would represent an entire Japanese fleet? Make that unit so tough that it would take an entire fleet to reliably destroy, and maybe even give it cargo holds for invasion units.

I'm pretty sure that the AI doesn't know how to use carriers, and, I suspect that the prospect of a monster unit sailing around will be more frightening to the player than the AI's uncoordinated use of an entire horde of weaker units.

 

[techumseh]

The scenario is great, and I enjoy it. It's just fun for me to toss out ideas and debate concepts, so I hope you take these posts in that spirit. And I hope it builds interest in the forum and the scenario.

Here's another approach that might work well. Place a NEUTRAL infantry unit normally used by another civ in various neutral cities. For example, a German infantry unit, belonging to the neutral civ in Madrid, a French inf unit belonging to the neutral civ in Casablanca, Dakar and Algiers, a Romanian inf. belonging to the neutral civ in Istanbul and Ankara, and a British inf. belonging to the neutral civ unit in Tehran and Kabul could all serve as specific triggers for each country represented by the Neutral civ.

Killing a specific type of Neutral unit could be a trigger a specific set of createunit events for that country. For example, it could create a whole set of units representing the Turks in Istanbul and Ankara, before either city was captured. This could include fortresses in each city.

 

[tootall_2012]

Hi Prof. Garfield,

Regarding the Japanese Navy, have you considered creating a unit like "IJN Taskforce" that would represent an entire Japanese fleet? Make that unit so tough that it would take an entire fleet to reliably destroy, and maybe even give it cargo holds for invasion units.

I'm pretty sure that the AI doesn't know how to use carriers, and, I suspect that the prospect of a monster unit sailing around will be more frightening to the player than the AI's uncoordinated use of an entire horde of weaker units.

That's correct the AI doesn't really know how to use carriers. Though on occasions you will see it deploy air units on its carriers, most times it will debark its planes and move them to land bases at the first opportunity.

Your "IJN Taskforce" concept is a variation to the "Yamato Battleship" idea I implemented in my scenario, i.e. create a uniquely powerful naval unit. Unfortunately, what Techumseh's play testing revealed is that it probably isn't powerful enough.

Though giving the Task force the ability to carry units as well sounded very interesting at first glance, I soon realized to do so would mean you would have to give it the "Sea Transport" unit role as opposed to the 'Naval Superiority' role (you can only assign one role per unit type). That probably means the Task Force would become much more passive and try avoid combat rather than seek it.

 

[tootall_2012]

Hi Techumseh,

The scenario is great, and I enjoy it. It's just fun for me to toss out ideas and debate concepts, so I hope you take these posts in that spirit. And I hope it builds interest in the forum and the scenario.

As I've mentioned many times in the past I'm always interested in players feedback and as I'm certain you well know I've included many of their recommendations, including yours, in many of my updated scenario versions. So in that sense I always appreciate the fact that players take the time to post their comments. I believe, in the end it helps me (and possibly other designers) make better scenarios.

I've enjoyed playing this scenario very much myself, even though it might not be as intricate as my 'A House Divided' game. All the same, I can assure you I've spent at least as much time if not more on designing/play testing it as any of my other scenarios.

I think the primary difference is that it's more difficult to control the AI behavior in this game because 1) there are more nations involved and 2) you're playing on a world map where the AI can move its units on multiple fronts and/or directions at the same time. In my 'Battle of France' scenario for example there were only 2 protagonists, the Allies and Germany and the battlefield is much more restricted in that it is really one directional, i.e. after the Allies land on the beaches they have really only one direction to go, westward towards Germany and the Rhineland. In that situation, it's much easier to control the AI's behavior and script events to counter specific Allied actions.

Here's another approach that might work well. Place a NEUTRAL infantry unit normally used by another civ in various neutral cities...
Killing a specific type of Neutral unit could be a trigger a specific set of createunit events for that country. For example, it could create a whole set of units representing the Turks in Istanbul and Ankara, before either city was captured. This could include fortresses in each city.

That's certainly an innovative solution. No doubt. Unfortunately, as I've mentioned I have no space left in my event file. To be able to implement this solution would require scraping some of the already carefully thought out events I have and I don't want to that.

I agree with you that Spain attacking Britain because British troops invaded North Africa isn't historical. Nevertheless, if you recall, Spain was under Franco' fascist regime and Hitler had actively tried to recruit him to the Axis cause. If Germany had been more successful against Russia, Turkey might also have entered the war on the German side. In Iran there had been a rebellion which had to be quashed by British troops.

Personally, I see it as an added burden the human player has to deal with and being part of my concept of always trying to make things more difficult not easier for them. In the last game I played, for example, I failed to properly reconnoiter the sea lanes south of Pearl Harbor and an invasion fleet of Japanese transports slipped by and successfully invaded and captured Mexico city. As a consequence, I had to divert much needed American forces to recapture that nation.

In the end I see three options, 1) leave things as they are or 2) replace the Neutrals units in Mexico City, Madrid, Istanbul, Ankara and Teheran with one bunker unit per city or 3) implement Patine's solution of making Casablanca and Algiers German cities (in that manner America/Britain could invade this territory without having to declare war on the Neutrals. Then if a player decided to attack the Neutrals they would have to suffer the consequences accordingly.

There probably still are a few changes I could make that would benefit this scenario, so don't hesitate to send me your comments or suggestions. Though to be honest, at the same time, I'm eager to move on to my next project.

 

[clightning]

Hi Prof. Garfield,



That's correct the AI doesn't really know how to use carriers. Though on occasions you will see it deploy air units on its carriers, most times it will debark its planes and move them to land bases at the first opportunity.

Your "IJN Taskforce" concept is a variation to the "Yamato Battleship" idea I implemented in my scenario, i.e. create a uniquely powerful naval unit. Unfortunately, what Techumseh's play testing revealed is that it probably isn't powerful enough.

Though giving the Task force the ability to carry units as well sounded very interesting at first glance, I soon realized to do so would mean you would have to give it the "Sea Transport" unit role as opposed to the 'Naval Superiority' role (you can only assign one role per unit type). That probably means the Task Force would become much more passive and try avoid combat rather than seek it.

Hi Tootall,
While appreciating your work, here are some of my suggestions:
1, Battleship with transport slots works fine. I did so in my mod of Eivind IV's Blitzkrieg1942 and IJN did send Battleships with Marines onboard. If the ship survives a shore bombardment, the Marines would assult the land target.

2, In TotalWar however, the only fighter that is capable for escort mission is P-51, while all others are same to vanila CIV2 fighters. I never really like the mode of vanila CIV2 fighters: they are only Interceptors, they can eliminate enemy bombers with high efficiency but can hardly gain air superiority by wipe out enemy fighters that may come in your bombers way. So I think Range=2 or more is better.
However I do agree Range=1 has its use. My personal solution is, offer two Rule.txt for players, make them identical to each other, except for one with all fighters ranged 2 or more, and the other with all fighters range=1. The first one shall be used as the default file, while if the players want to perform "Intercept Mission" they can save the game and replace the file with the second one. After the "Intercept Mission" and before the end of the turn, they can again save the game and place the default file back.
I found this to be very useful, because if offers great tactic flexibility. Though A/D stats adjustment would also be necessary.

3, the "x2 on defense versus air" flag actually triples the anti air defence. So, your P-51 Mustang has its D=15 against any other fighter...Don't you think that's too much?

4, Make more and more often Axies and Japaness UnitCreat evants...they need it to keep pressure on frontline.

5, I always feel regret that, not a single scenario can well present the usefullness of Aircraft Carriers, not to say Battle of Midway, because even if two Carrier fleets engage each other, even if your Carrier is loaded with Fighters, it cannot protect the fleet nor even if itself. There can be one rescure, that is to cut the bomber's Movement, increase its Range, so it needs to stay in air for at least one turn before reaching target, thus leave escort fighters one shoot window---however this method is flawed, because many scenario features navy ships with long Movements, then the fleets can simplly out run incoming bombers...If the bombers are lucky to catch enemy fleet within one turn movement, there is nothing can stop them...So neither way there is a chance for a Midway style air-see battle.
My fix to this is as following:
(1) make oceans stackable
(2) make navy carrier based planes to be "helicopters(Range=0)", so they can be placed on your ships, while still allowing enemy surface force to attack the ship (because helis can be attacked by surface, thus it is not "air stack protection").
(3) give navy planes have higher D value than ships on paper, as well as a high FirePower. Then test and twist the numbers, to make sure that both following results are achieved: a) the navy planes have a good chance defend against air bombing, thus can be placed on your fleet as an escort; b) because any helis that are attacked by fighter units shall have their FP reduced to 1, you can make this unit strong against incoming bombers, but weak against incoming fighters at the same time. Its D value must be higher than ships, because CIV2 program pick the first defender of a stack by judging its actual D value and remaining health. If we want the plane to defend the ship not the opposite, the plane must have higher D.
(4) divide its D value by 3, and give it the "x2 on defense versus air" flag, so it is not over powered while defend surface attacks, but its performance against air is not changed. This dose not affect its "actual" D against air.
(5) the result is such a unit: you can place it on top of any of your ground or naval unit with out break the "No Air Stack" rule, it can well defend the tile against bombers but not so well against fighters(just like the fighters Scramble from citys, which have their Dx4 against incoming bombers, but only x2 against incoming fighters). So the opposing force, if being wise, shall first send fighters to take out this navy plane, then send bombers to take out the ship---just like the wise way to air raid a city.
(6) for you scenario, because you don't have more slots for a new dedicated "Naval Fighter", I'd suggest to make TBF-1 Avenger this way. Reasons: a) it doesn't necessary change TBF's attacking performance. b) it is not a really useful unit so far, so why not give it a new role. c) use TBF-1 Avenger as fleet air cover may sounds ahistorical, but truth of histroy is that, SDBs and TBFs were used as air defence in many combats and performed just fine against Japaness divebombers or torpedo bombers. d) so, the player has to make a choice, whether to send TBFs out to sink enemy fleets, or place it defending your own out rim fleet but suffering minor damage each turn(remember, they are helis), or keep it at Carrier bay only defend the mother ship? It not a choice as hard as Chūichi Nagumo's, but it may be the closest we can have in CIV2.

 

[tootall_2012]

Hi clightning,

I apologize for the long delay in replying but real life as been keeping me very busy the past few months. Nevertheless I wanted to thank you for your comments and take some time to respond to you.

1. Battleship with transport slots works fine. I did so in my mod of Eivind IV's Blitzkrieg1942 and IJN did send Battleships with Marines onboard

In the end, I decided against allowing battleships to carry infantry units to avoid the 'Bermuda Triangle Bug' whereby naval stacks can be eliminated if one of its homed unit's city is captured (though I will admit I didn't test it to see if it applies to ground units stacked on naval units).

2. In TotalWar however, the only fighter that is capable for escort mission is P-51, while all others are same to vanila CIV2 fighters.

This is always a tough one for me. Like you I prefer the range 2 ability of air units to allow air combat between opposing enemy air forces but at the same time I don't like the fact that it gives the human player an unfair advantage where they can stack their air units on top of their ground units to prevent enemy counterattacks.

I allowed it in my Battle of France scenario because it made sense for the scale of the game (and I added a house rule which forbad the stacking of air units on top of ground units). I felt it didn't work as well for a strategic level game hence the reason I didn't give the 2 range to fighters in this scenario.

3. the "x2 on defense versus air" flag actually triples the anti air defense. So, your P-51 Mustang has its D=15 against any other fighter...Don't you think that's too much?

To be honest I didn't give this one too much thought. I primarily duplicated the same abilities that most other designers used in their WWII scenarios with regards the P-51. This was a uniquely capable aircraft and other than the Japanese Zero, which was largely obsolete by this time, was the only other fighter that had its combat range (hence its 2 range).

4. Make more and more often Axis and Japanese UnitCreat evants...they need it to keep pressure on frontline.

Are you indicating that you find the game too easy and not challenging enough? That always a difficult balancing act when designing scenarios, i.e. you want to make it challenging enough for experienced players but not so difficult that it's off putting for more novice players.

I really don't have any more space left in my event files to allow the creation of new events (if I remember correctly I have less than 1200 kb in my American and 300kb in my British event files) but I could generate more units for the events that already exist.

I'd be interested in hearing more from you or any other player who've played this scenario on the difficulty level, i.e. too easy or not.

5, I always feel regret that, not a single scenario can well present the usefulness of Aircraft Carriers, not to say Battle of Midway

You solution to handle the AI aircraft carrier is certainly interesting but not one I'm personally prepared to design or test at this time. I see that you are working on your own Battle of Midway scenario and hopefully will be able to demonstrate that someone has finally conceived a solution to a long standing problem.

With regards making the ocean tiles stackable, as I mentioned in a previous thread I'm not willing to do so because of the fact that ground units stacked on transports don't get eliminated when their naval units get sunk and I find that too unrealistic.

All the same I wish you the best of luck with your own project.

 

[clightning]

Thank you for your reply, dear Tootall.
Here are some comments regarding to your reply.

Hi clightning,
This is always a tough one for me. Like you I prefer the range 2 ability of air units to allow air combat between opposing enemy air forces but at the same time I don't like the fact that it gives the human player an unfair advantage where they can stack their air units on top of their ground units to prevent enemy counterattacks.

I allowed it in my Battle of France scenario because it made sense for the scale of the game (and I added a house rule which forbad the stacking of air units on top of ground units). I felt it didn't work as well for a strategic level game hence the reason I didn't give the 2 range to fighters in this scenario.

You can always add a house rule to forbid air stack. I personally never found scale to be a problem for this, as there is always enough space to place air units and ground units in the different tiles.

To be honest I didn't give this one too much thought. I primarily duplicated the same abilities that most other designers used in their WWII scenarios with regards the P-51. This was a uniquely capable aircraft and other than the Japanese Zero, which was largely obsolete by this time, was the only other fighter that had its combat range (hence its 2 range).

I understand that you want to make Mustang an outstanding escort fighter, that does make sense. But my point is, the current stats make Mustang virtually invinciable. The defactual defense value of Mustang almost double other fighters' attack value, and equals 150% of that of Me262. Please be noticed that, if a unit with D=2 defend against an attack with A=1, the defender have 2/3 or 67% chance to win a single round, to win a two-round-fight, the chance rises to (2/3)^2+(2/3)^2*(1/3)*2=74%, for a three-round-fight the chance rises to (2/3)^3+(2/3)^3*(1/3)*3+(2/3)^3*(1/3)^2*6=79%...and the chance rises as the rounds increases. For a fight between two units that are both H=2 F=2, that's 10 rounds, the attacker's winning chance is really slim...I can write down the formula if you are interested, but my point is, the intercepting opposing fighter should have a chance better than this, especially if it is a Me262 intercepting P-51.

Are you indicating that you find the game too easy and not challenging enough? That always a difficult balancing act when designing scenarios, i.e. you want to make it challenging enough for experienced players but not so difficult that it's off putting for more novice players.

I really don't have any more space left in my event files to allow the creation of new events (if I remember correctly I have less than 1200 kb in my American and 300kb in my British event files) but I could generate more units for the events that already exist.

Yes you are right. It is always compromise and trade-off within the limit. Though I do think more millitary pressure should be placed upon players.

You solution to handle the AI aircraft carrier is certainly interesting but not one I'm personally prepared to design or test at this time. I see that you are working on your own Battle of Midway scenario and hopefully will be able to demonstrate that someone has finally conceived a solution to a long standing problem.

With regards making the ocean tiles stackable, as I mentioned in a previous thread I'm not willing to do so because of the fact that ground units stacked on transports don't get eliminated when their naval units get sunk and I find that too unrealistic.

All the same I wish you the best of luck with your own project.

Thank you! However I'm really frustrated in the past weekend, I tried all I can think about (I even tried to make Japanse to be barbarians so they don't have a home city to go back to), but still the AI performed less than playable, not to mention favorable for a Midway style battle. I begun to understand why there are so few scenarios for air/sea battles, or battles that requires precise timing... Nonetheless I shall continue to try it out.

 

[tootall_2012]

Hi clightning,

Thank you for your feedback. I see that there are still a few changes I could make that would benefit the scenario. Though I still don't have much free time these days, I've compiled a small list which I hope to be able to implement in the near future.

• Increase the Axis OOB and event unit creation to make the game a little more challenging to the Allies.
• Increase the strength of the 'Yamato' class battleship to make them more difficult for the Allies to sink
• Make Casablanca and Algiers German cities to address the Neutrals attacking the Allies problem
• Reevaluate the strength of the P-51 Mustang unit.
• Replace the TBF-1 American air unit, as no one seems to use it. Though I'm not certain at this time replace it with what.

However I'm really frustrated in the past weekend , I tried all I can think about (I even tried to make Japanese to be barbarians so they don't have a home city to go back to), but still the AI performed less than playable, not to mention favorable for a Midway style battle. I begun to understand why there are so few scenarios for air/sea battles, or battles that requires precise timing... Nonetheless I shall continue to try it out.

There's nothing more frustrating that trying to implement what you hope will be a revolutionary idea and discovering it's doesn't work. There have been many times in the past were I've had to adapt or compromise on concepts I hoped might work.

When I first read your Battle of Midway thread I immediately thought it would be difficult to get the AI's naval forces to behave in a consistent and coordinated manner. Unfortunately, in CIV II the naval units of an AI power tend to act on an individual basis.

The only possible solution I can think of to prevent the Japanese air units trying to go back to base is to create a second map and to place your Japanese city on it (I don't imagine you need more than one for this scenario). Thereby the air units on the carriers won't have any place to go and will be compelled to remain onboard. The only possible alternative to getting the naval task force to work in a coordinated manner would be to use 'MoveTo' commands but I fear that would only get you so far.