Typhoon of Steel - Version 2

I made some changes to the short single player Japan scenario.

Reasons:
1. In the old version I gave the allies 2 extra techs, amphibious
warfare and naval tactics. However the AI never builds marines
so amphib. warfare was a bad choice. Also with the naval tactics,
the AI built lots of fast battleships, however it takes a long time
to build them in most cities, so by the time they showed up in quantity
the scenario was pretty much over.
In the new version I gave the allies armour tactics (they WILL build
medium tanks) and advanced flight.

2. I changed the AI strategy for guerillas from none to offensive. In
the old version the guerillas just fortified where ever they started and did
nothing.

If you try this scenario, please post here and let me know how it went.

You can download the new .biq files from post #16, here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1960797&postcount=16

The allied single player file was not changed.
 
Eric_A:

Why won't the AI build marines? Does it not consider them a valuable enough unit? Have you consider playing around with its unit cost to see if they will build them? We found at ACW that the game some obscure reasons for prefering certain unit builds. Tweaking the unit cost (for the AI side) might be enough to get the unit built.

Seems to me that without marines being built alot of amphibious side of the scenario is lost.

Misfit
 
I might be able to do something by playing around with
the costs and the "build often" flags. But considering
how bad the AI is with invasions I wonder if it's worth
the effort?

For the single player Japan version I had to set it up
with the troops already landed to make a decent
game.
 
Three bugs found in V2.02 are fixed in this version:

1. The Advanced submarine did not have the Invisible flag set.

2. The AA factor for the Yamato class super battleship was changed
from 3 to 2. Most the this classes' secondary guns were for surface
tragets only.

3. Our PBEM test showed that the PT boats were pretty much useless
except for cheap recon units. In order to fix this I increased the attack
factors from 2 to 3 and increased cost from 20 to 30 shields.

Instructions: Extract the two scenario files and copy them to your conquest\scenarios folder.

I will be posting the single player files within the next few days.
 
Eric_A:

Did you post a notice on Thunderfall's notice thread? He posts a short list of mod / unit / scenario changes every week and I didn't see anything from TOS there. You might get more traffic with that advertisement.

Misfit
 
Work continuies slowly on version 3 of this scenario. The screen shot
below shows some of the new stuff.

1. Place names, since some of the islands no longer have cities

2. New CVL unit

3. New Japanese basic destroyer. Actually it is a Russian DD. Lack of
IJN ships is a major problem in doing this scenario. There is a new
Akuzuki unit, but it is a late war DD so I will use it for an advanced DD.
I am even working on my own 3D model for an IJN DE.

4. New I-boat unit.

5. New attack transport unit.
 
Eric_A:

When you have a rev. ready for TOS v3.0 let me know. I'll help playtest. I like the new labels. I think it will add some historical feel to the scenario.

Misfit
 
I am interested in trying out the version 3.
Place names should prove very valuable !
One condition though: that my two current WWII Pacific PBEMs are through which might take some time.
 
Only 2 so far:

1. *** This has been changed, see post #39 below. ****
Heavy bombers can no longer be built directly. I have added a new
small wonder, the Boeing Aircraft Co. which builds one heavy bomber
unit every 4 turns. In order to build heavy bombers you need to
build the wonder, the prerequiste is flight so any civ can build it.
The USA already has the Boeing Aircraft Co. in Seattle at the start
of the scenario.

2.
The betty bomber, replaces the standard bomber for Japan. The
betty had very long range for a two engined bomber but very
little protection. Thus the betty has a range of 12, 2 more than
the standard bomber, but it has a defense strength of 1 rather
than 2. Being a 2 engined bomber it is cheaper, 100 shields
instead of 120. Other specs are the same as the standard bomber.
 
The idea of a wonder producing units is a good one for this scenario, but heavy bombers were not available at the start of the war. I also think the frequency of the bomber creation will be a problem. That's a lot of free bombers in the game.

Why not give the U.S. a wonder producing regular bombers at the start of the game? This would be consistent with units available at that time, then permit the U.S. to upgrade those units to heavy bombers when the tech becomes available.

That way they get the free unit, but if they want to upsize them to the latest and greatest, they have to throw a little money at it.

Just a thought.

Misfit
 
Misfit_travel said:
The idea of a wonder producing units is a good one for this scenario, but heavy bombers were not available at the start of the war. I also think the frequency of the bomber creation will be a problem. That's a lot of free bombers in the game.

Why not give the U.S. a wonder producing regular bombers at the start of the game? This would be consistent with units available at that time, then permit the U.S. to upgrade those units to heavy bombers when the tech becomes available.

That way they get the free unit, but if they want to upsize them to the latest and greatest, they have to throw a little money at it.

Just a thought.

Misfit
Click to expand...

You are right it, is a bit of a fudge, but I think it is better than what
I had before, which was only allowing the US to build them.
I may have to adjust the rate, we will see how it goes in the PBEM.
 
Has been launched, you can follow it here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=103020

After rethinking the heavy bomber issue, I decided that they
should not be a factor in the short game. I changed them
as follows:

Heavy bombers can no longer be built directly. I have added a new
small wonder, the Boeing Aircraft Co. which builds one heavy bomber
unit every 4 turns. In order to build heavy bombers you need to
build the wonder, the prerequiste is advanced construction.
Since the USA already has adavanced construction at the start
of the scenario, they can start building the wonder right away,
but Japan will have to research the tech first.
 
Eric_A:

I had a quick look at the TOS beta2.biq file this morning before I went to work. The Boeing Aircraft factory is listed as an improvement, rather than a small/large wonder. Sneaky players like me would gladly sacrifice a MGL to force build the B.A.F. in multiple cities to crank out heavy bombers. You may wish to consider two alternatives:

a) assign a resource that only exists within the city radius of Seattle, then make the B.A.F. require that resource to build

b) assign the B.A.F. as a Great Wonder, thus only allowing one civ to build it

c) assign the B.A.F. as a Small Wonder, allowing only one per civ to be built.

Conditions b) and c) could still be circumvented by the Japanese player by sacrificing a MGL for a force build.

Something to consider for the next beta.

Regards
Misfit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hatul_Gadol
[C3C] Game of Thrones
Replies
19
Views
1K
RedMaul
R
Burntz
Summarize files to one file for AI analysis. (Script)
Replies
0
Views
487
Burntz
Burntz
Lionic
[SCENARIO] The Cold War (TCW) Unofficial update by Lionic
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
9K
Lionic
Lionic
H
VP 4.22 + 34UC v88 Korean Mod & Modpack
Replies
0
Views
1K
HANDANI
H
Hatul_Gadol
[C3C] House of the Dragon: Battle for Westeros
2 3
Replies
44
Views
5K
Hatul_Gadol
Hatul_Gadol
Back
Top Bottom