Typhoon of Steel - Version 3

[eric_A]

I started some games with invisible subs at the start. I think invisible subs make sense, however the Advanced Sub is in my opinion overpowered. It is not only a powerful offensive weapon, but also the first unit in the tech tree that can detect subs. In a MP game, Submarine Tactics would be my first choice, and I don't think that either side can afford to miss researching this technology at the very beginning.

I would suggest swapping Submarine Tactics and ASW in the tech tree for several reasons:

From a historic point of view, DD Escorts and Aircraft were the first sub hunters in the Atlantic, and AFAIK in the Pacific, too. Their appearance in the war lead in turn to the developement of better subs (snorkel, E-Boat).

Secondly, all players in the scenario would have to decide whether to defend against subs or to gain naval superiority with surface ships. At the moment, Submarine Tactics allows for both, as the Advanced Subs can screen your transports AND destroy CAs and even BBs. The race for naval power narrows down to more and better subs, and not on carriers, as in reality.

Furthermore, I think that the Advanced Sub disbalanced the game in favor to the Allies, as Japan IMHO has to research this tech at the start. Thus, it cannot spend much money on rush buying units during the critical first turns. Furthermore, the Allies have more subs on the map, which can be upgraded immediately after researching Submarine Tactics.

If Submarine Tactics and ASW would be swapped, both sides could keep up the pressure of their submarine fleets after the discory of ASW by researching Advanced Subs later on. This, in turn, would probably make Advanced Destroyers necessary. Because of their radar ability and high movement rate, they are the best sub hunters in the game.

I think the developement submarine - DD Escort/ASW Aircraft - Advanced Sub - Advanced DD is historically accurate and would be more interesting to play, as it would encourage the use of DD Escorts and Advanced DDs. I consider ASW in TOS 3.01 to be rather useless, as the ASW Aircraft does unfortunately not work as intended, and the DD Escort ist far superior to the Advanced DD. Why should I research ASW, if Fire Control Systems gives me a rather expensive, but perfect sub-hunter which can actually survive attacking an (Advanced) Sub?
At the moment, FCS is as easy to research as ASW, and as a bonus, I will be able to build AA Cruisers.

There is much truth in what you say, others have suggested that I make it
possible to research either ASW or sub tactics right from the start and I
think this is what I will do in the next release.

Don't underestimate the value of DEs or ASW aircraft, you can combine them
with a light carrier and build a hunter-killer group which can take on any type
of subs.

Same goes for the PT boat, they have stealth attack against your basic
transports and destroyers and can outrun any ship in shallow water.

The AI won't use either of these tactics but in the hands of a good human
player they are lethal.

 

[eric_A]

Concerning the replies to my idea of a cheap scouting plane in the TOS PBEM-Thread:

I'm amazed how Misfit_travel could put so much pressure on China/CW and still maintain an effective scouting screen in the Pacific...

Quite possibly this is because the Allies have made almost every mistake
in the book in the 3.00 test game! But did you read what happened in the
V2.02 test game, if not here is the thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=92670&page=1&pp=20

 

[El_Tigre]

There is much truth in what you say, others have suggested that I make it possible to research either ASW or sub tactics right from the start and I think this is what I will do in the next release.

I thought that there isn't enough room for one more tier 1 tech in the tech tree? If so, I would prefer ASW as the first tech, as the Advanced Sub is just too powerfull without even DD Escorts on the map.

Don't underestimate the value of DEs or ASW aircraft, you can combine them
with a light carrier and build a hunter-killer group which can take on any type
of subs.

But I don't! That why I want them to be available earlier in the game.
I just think that their position in the tech tree is wrong...
edited to clarify: ...because I can already build the Advanced Sub as sub hunter before researching ASW.

Same goes for the PT boat, they have stealth attack against your basic
transports and destroyers and can outrun any ship in shallow water.

PT Boat against Destroyer would be A3 against D5, and the PT Boat has -1hp. I assume you mean DD Escort, against which it does not have stealth attack. And I bet you won't see any basic transports on the map after the discovery of Naval Tactics. That's a pretty small window of opportunity for the PT Boat. And there are lots of cities in Indonesia to hide a transport from counterattacks.

Quite possibly this is because the Allies have made almost every mistake
in the book in the 3.00 test game! But did you read what happened in the
V2.02 test game, if not here is the thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showt...70&page=1&pp=20

I will take a look, thanks.

 

[Rocoteh]

I would welcome your input.

About the lack of naval interception:
That is one of the main reasons I doubled the cost of coastal
tiles. If a transport with a movement of 6 wants to invade a location
6 tiles away, it must leave port which costs 2 for the coastal tile, it then
moves across 4 sea tiles and has no movement to enter the final coastal
tile. This gives the other side some chance to attack.

I have been thinking of trying to adapt the TOS naval-air system to your
WW2 global scenario. With your permission, I would like to create a modified
version and post it so people try it. It would have 1/4 as many DDs and
SSs and half as many cruisers as yours, but would have all the capital
ships (BBs, BCs & CVs).

eric_A,

I will probably introduce doubled cost for coastal tiles in
WW2-Global also. Its a good idea.

Yes it would be interesting to see the version you mention.
I appreciate if you post it in the WW2-Global thread though.

Rocoteh

 

[eric_A]

eric_A,

I will probably introduce doubled cost for coastal tiles in
WW2-Global also. Its a good idea.

Yes it would be interesting to see the version you mention.
I appreciate if you post it in the WW2-Global thread though.

Rocoteh

No problem, I can post it there.

 

[Misfit_travel]

Tech Costs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been doing some thinking about the tech cost issues Misfit pointed
out. Listed below are the current costs and the changes I would make:

Costs in V3.00

Advanced Construction 70
Guerilla Warfare 120
Counter Insurgency 100
Submarine Tactics 120
Naval Tactics 100
Armour Tactics 110
Divine Wind 100
Advanced Flight 110
Atomic Theory 160
Amphibious Warfare 70
ASW 100
Jet Engines 140
Long Range Fighters 60
Fission 170
Fire Control Systems 100
Underway Replentishment 60
Uranium Enrichment 170

Proposed changes

Advanced Construction 70
Guerilla Warfare 110
Counter Insurgency 70
Submarine Tactics 70
Naval Tactics 110
Armour Tactics 110
Divine Wind 70
ASW 70

I would prefer to keep sub tactics as a prerequiste for ASW for
two reasons. One, there is no mrse space in the first row of the
tech tree. Mose importantly it would mess up the "invisible" subs
idea I introduced in V3.01 by giving the advantage back to the
escorts too soon.

I like the new tech costs. They are more balanced. You may want to consider merging the techs that provide more advanced submarines with destroyer escorts and ASW. That way you get the offensive and defensive capabilities within the same tech, instead of having to research three separate techs. It would thin out the tech tree a little bit (visually) and make it more realistic to be able to research more of them within the scope of the scenario.

Misfit

 

[eric_A]

I like the new tech costs. They are more balanced. You may want to consider merging the techs that provide more advanced submarines with destroyer escorts and ASW. That way you get the offensive and defensive capabilities within the same tech, instead of having to research three separate techs. It would thin out the tech tree a little bit (visually) and make it more realistic to be able to research more of them within the scope of the scenario.

Misfit

Yes, merging ASW and sub tactics is a good option, I'll give it
some thought. It would make it a lot easier to mod the tech tree, I could
probably squeeze one more tech in the first column, but it would be a
lot easier to do it this way. It would be a key tech so the cost should
be over 150 I would think.

 

[eric_A]

PT Boat against Destroyer would be A3 against D5, and the PT Boat has -1hp. I assume you mean DD Escort, against which it does not have stealth attack. And I bet you won't see any basic transports on the map after the discovery of Naval Tactics. That's a pretty small window of opportunity for the PT Boat. And there are lots of cities in Indonesia to hide a transport from counterattacks.

You've got to look at the big picture!

It's not just 1 PT boat against a destroyer, since they are so cheap
there will often be 5 to 10 in a stack hunting together. And often
the destroyer will have been damaged by air attack and will be trying
to limp home. I have seen a PT boat take out a redlined super battleship!

I have never seen a game, even a long game where there was more attack
transports than basic transports. They are expensive and they take awhile
to build.

 

[Misfit_travel]

Looking Ahead.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been thinking of making some changes in TOS V4.00.

Artillery:
What I have in mind is two types of artillery, field guns and heavy guns.
Field guns would have a range of 1, be slightly cheaper than the current
artillery and have lower bombard strength. They would also have a small
defence strength so they could not be captured. They would be able to move
in all terrain without roads. Most of the artillery at start would be field
guns.

Heavy guns would have a range of 2, lethal sea bombard, be more powerful
and cost more than the current artillery. Heavy guns can be captured, so if
you think there is a chance of them falling into enemy hands you can always
disband them. Heavy guns could ONLY be moved by roads/rails or by ships.
At the start of the game each of the major powers would have 2 or 3 heavy
guns at some key locations (such as Singapore and Corrigador) but the
Chinese and the Dutch would have none.

Interesting idea. I definitely like the idea of field guns. I've been stacking artillery during my island hopping to take out city defenses across islands. That not realistic (historically).

I don't know about the idea of heavy guns, unless you make them high defense units as well as their bombard abilities (ie like the Coastal Guns in ACWC3C). That way they could play the role of defensive installations with the bombardment upside. As they would have a defensive value, they are not capturable, but would be destroyed as any other defending unit.

If you cost them somewhere around a CA type unit, you might see a defensive minded player building them in critical locations.

Kamaikazes:
Also, I am doing some research on Kamaikazes and should have some changes
for those units soon. I had no idea they had stealth attack!

This units are effectively missiles (in CIV terminology). I think they should retain stealth attack and far greater range and rate of fire. I'd like to see them do a consistent 2 hps of damage. That's lethal for early game units, but it would take multiple hits to kill veteran or elite units.

Subs Vs Subs:
I have been playing Rocoteh's WW2 Global scenario and in this one subs
cannot see subs. I think this is more accurate for the early period of the
war when subs had no radar and fairly primitive listening gear. And due to
the vast distances involved in the Pacific most sub Vs sub encounters were
purely by chance. So for the MP1 games I would remove the "see invisible"
flags for the 3 basic sub types, I-boat, US Submarine and the submarine. In
the MP2 games subs would be completely invisible at start.

What does MP1 and MP2 mean? I like the idea that subs can't see other subs.

Another spin on the whole submarine idea is to use them as bombardment platforms. Remove much of their attack strength and instead give them lethal sea bombardment capability (range 1 or 2) to represent their immediate patrol area. Right now their attack is all or nothing. You get him or they get you. Bombardment would reduce their ability to isolate and attack, but would increase their survivability.

I think that retaining cultural boundaries is not a good idea, when a city
falls to an enemy power, it should disrupt food production and road/rail
travel in the area. Retaining cultural boundaries would make it even easier
for Japan to take China snd Southeast Asia.

Perhaps you're right, but then you have to give the Japanese the ability to build temples or some other cheap cultural unit. They cannot do so in v3.0.

Another thought is to introduce a Japanese city improvement called "labour camps" or "forced labour". This would be cheap to build and would marginally increase city production. The way to limit this to captured cities is to add a resource (underneath probable Japanese conquest cities) and force the editor to have that resource within city boundaries. Boost shield production by 25% but have the city improvement add 1-2 unhappy faces.

Regards
Misfit

 

[eric_A]

Interesting idea. I definitely like the idea of field guns. I've been stacking artillery during my island hopping to take out city defenses across islands. That not realistic (historically).

I don't know about the idea of heavy guns, unless you make them high defense units as well as their bombard abilities (ie like the Coastal Guns in ACWC3C). That way they could play the role of defensive installations with the bombardment upside. As they would have a defensive value, they are not capturable, but would be destroyed as any other defending unit.

If you cost them somewhere around a CA type unit, you might see a defensive minded player building them in critical locations.



This units are effectively missiles (in CIV terminology). I think they should retain stealth attack and far greater range and rate of fire. I'd like to see them do a consistent 2 hps of damage. That's lethal for early game units, but it would take multiple hits to kill veteran or elite units.



What does MP1 and MP2 mean? I like the idea that subs can't see other subs.

Another spin on the whole submarine idea is to use them as bombardment platforms. Remove much of their attack strength and instead give them lethal sea bombardment capability (range 1 or 2) to represent their immediate patrol area. Right now their attack is all or nothing. You get him or they get you. Bombardment would reduce their ability to isolate and attack, but would increase their survivability.



Perhaps you're right, but then you have to give the Japanese the ability to build temples or some other cheap cultural unit. They cannot do so in v3.0.

Another thought is to introduce a Japanese city improvement called "labour camps" or "forced labour". This would be cheap to build and would marginally increase city production. The way to limit this to captured cities is to add a resource (underneath probable Japanese conquest cities) and force the editor to have that resource within city boundaries. Boost shield production by 25% but have the city improvement add 1-2 unhappy faces.

Regards
Misfit

Heavy Guns:
I was reading about how the Japanese removed the coastal batteries
they captured at Singapore and shipped them off to defend Truk or
some other island fortress, that is the sort of thing I want to simulate.
The moral of the story is: if there is a chance of them falling into enemy
hands - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DISBAND THEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kamikaze:
I fixed the stealth attack against the new naval units and upped the
rate of fire to 2, but haven't had a chance to test it yet.
I will have more to say on the range in a day or two.

MP1 and MP2:
MP1 games are like the one were are currently playing, in MP2
games subs are invisible to destroyers and other subs at the start of the
game.

Sub Bombard:
I am afraid the AI would then use subs to bombard cities and land units.

Labour Camps:
Good idea, I will add it to V4.00 list. Possibly Counter-Insurgency could be
a prerequiste, finally a reason to research that tech!

Thanks for the input.

Eric

 

[Misfit_travel]

Yes, merging ASW and sub tactics is a good option, I'll give it
some thought. It would make it a lot easier to mod the tech tree, I could
probably squeeze one more tech in the first column, but it would be a
lot easier to do it this way. It would be a key tech so the cost should
be over 150 I would think.

I disagree. Make it the same as something like Armor Tactics. It is just another option to research. Too high a cost will discourage it from ever getting researched. Everything in the tech tree should be a fairly equal trade off with time required. That will give you the widest possible range of options for a player to pursue different (and non-standard WWII) strategies.

Also keep in mind that while you are getting some good offensive units, you get the counter for them at the exact same time (thereby weakening some of the advantage for anyone researching it).

Misfit

 

[Misfit_travel]

Heavy Guns:
I was reading about how the Japanese removed the coastal batteries
they captured at Singapore and shipped them off to defend Truk or
some other island fortress, that is the sort of thing I want to simulate.
The moral of the story is: if there is a chance of them falling into enemy
hands - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DISBAND THEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Physician heal thyself! You should have followed your own advice in the v3.00 test game. Most of my artillery came from your Chinese forces.

Seriously though, coastal guns that are transportable might be problematic. You might want to restrict them in such a way that only assault transports can carry them (if that's possible). Otherwise, they won't stay in the Allied areas that are sure to be taken by the Japanese.

Kamikaze:
I fixed the stealth attack against the new naval units and upped the
rate of fire to 2, but haven't had a chance to test it yet.
I will have more to say on the range in a day or two.

Maybe I misunderstood here, but they should have stealth attack against all naval units, not just the new ones. Kamikaze attacks were targets of opportunity, typically carriers or other critical ships first, smaller ships second.

My thought was to make them at least a range of 5 or 6. Anything smaller and the allies will land their forces before the Japanese can use them. You may also want to adopt the "hidden" city resource idea for these units, thereby limiting their construction to only Japanese game start harbour type cities. I suppose a player could still transport them to the Phillipines or something like that but it would take a fair bit of effort to do so. That would mitigate their mass construction and offset their higher potential combat ability.

MP1 and MP2:
MP1 games are like the one were are currently playing, in MP2
games subs are invisible to destroyers and other subs at the start of the
game.

All subs invisible at game start? Ugh. My Japanese fleet would be back in harbour so fast after Pearl. It would really twist the game dynamic. If you do that you'll have to balance it by letting game start DDs upgrade quickly to sub seeing units.

Sub Bombard:
I am afraid the AI would then use subs to bombard cities and land units.

Just a little "out of the box" thinking.

Labour Camps:
Good idea, I will add it to V4.00 list. Possibly Counter-Insurgency could be
a prerequiste, finally a reason to research that tech!

The only problem here might be that the Japanese winds up with an offsetting build advantage against the Allies. Japan should never be able to build as fast as the Allies under virtually any circumstance.

BTW something else to keep in mind is that drafting is something open to abuse. I've been drafting from large Japanese (and captured) cities every 5-8 turns. Cities like Canton, Peking, Tokyo and Saporo are conscript infantry factories. They are actually MORE productive at populations of 8-9 instead of pops 10-12. It PAYS to draft to keep their unit production at maximum. The Jap player can also build workers at other less economical cities (like Rangoon) to add pop. to a Japanese city, then allow more drafting. Drafting penalities don't really hurt core Japanese cities.

Cheers
Misfit

 

[eric_A]

Are you talking about with the "normal" subs or the "invisible" subs?

With normal subs, I would agree with you.

With "invisible" subs: there is an old adage:
"In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king".
If you consider the only other unit which can see subs is the
advanced destroyer, and to get to it you would have to spend 210
for naval tactics+fire control systems, then 170 or 180 for the
merged tech sounds like a deal to me.

Eric

 

[El_Tigre]

I just reproduced the bug with POWs: I started as Japan, captured a CW worker and moved it next to a CW unit. I expected the computer to recapture the worker, but it didn't, probably because the AI knew that it would not gain a unit. So I loaded the save as a MP game, with me being CW. When I attacked the POW it disappeared.

I noticed in the editor that POWs are not available to any nation. Perhaps that's the reason?

 

[eric_A]

Seriously though, coastal guns that are transportable might be problematic. You might want to restrict them in such a way that only assault transports can carry them (if that's possible). Otherwise, they won't stay in the Allied areas that are sure to be taken by the Japanese.

The heavy guns that start in the Phillipines would would be easy enough
to capture, unless they are disbanded. The ones in Singapore could
possibly be shipped out, but the nearest transports are in Perth or
Darwin.

Maybe I misunderstood here, but they should have stealth attack against all naval units, not just the new ones. Kamikaze attacks were targets of opportunity, typically carriers or other critical ships first, smaller ships second.

What I meant was I added all the new naval units to the target list, I did not
remove any of the existing ones.

My thought was to make them at least a range of 5 or 6. Anything smaller and the allies will land their forces before the Japanese can use them.

Good point!

You may also want to adopt the "hidden" city resource idea for these units, thereby limiting their construction to only Japanese game start harbour type cities. I suppose a player could still transport them to the Phillipines or something like that but it would take a fair bit of effort to do so. That would mitigate their mass construction and offset their higher potential combat ability.

But wouldn't any city connected to the resource by roads or harbours be
able to build them?

All subs invisible at game start? Ugh. My Japanese fleet would be back in harbour so fast after Pearl. It would really twist the game dynamic. If you do that you'll have to balance it by letting game start DDs upgrade quickly to sub seeing units.

Hmmm, isn't it a coincidence that that's exactly where the strike fleet
headed on the afternoon of December 7? DDs already have the ability
to upgrade to advance DDs once the tech is available and subs can already
upgrade to advanced subs.

The only problem here might be that the Japanese winds up with an offsetting build advantage against the Allies. Japan should never be able to build as fast as the Allies under virtually any circumstance.

There is no reason why the allies could not build labour camps.

BTW something else to keep in mind is that drafting is something open to abuse. I've been drafting from large Japanese (and captured) cities every 5-8 turns. Cities like Canton, Peking, Tokyo and Saporo are conscript infantry factories. They are actually MORE productive at populations of 8-9 instead of pops 10-12. It PAYS to draft to keep their unit production at maximum. The Jap player can also build workers at other less economical cities (like Rangoon) to add pop. to a Japanese city, then allow more drafting. Drafting penalities don't really hurt core Japanese cities.

In the long single player games I changed the drafting so that instead of
an infantry unit you get a crappy rifleman unit. I may do that in the
multiplayer games as well.

Thanks for the input.
Eric

 

[Misfit_travel]

I just reproduced the bug with POWs: I started as Japan, captured a CW worker and moved it next to a CW unit. I expected the computer to recapture the worker, but it didn't, probably because the AI knew that it would not gain a unit. So I loaded the save as a MP game, with me being CW. When I attacked the POW it disappeared.

I noticed in the editor that POWs are not available to any nation. Perhaps that's the reason?

Seems to me that if you capture a Prisoner of War, that it should be freed (ie emancipated back into the general population of our country). That would make more sense than turning them into slave workers of your own nation.

Misfit

 

[El_Tigre]

I read about a Navy plan that demanded an attack on Formosa immediately after the capture of Guam / Saipan to disrupt the Japanese oil routes, but MacArthur got his way and the US invaded the Philippines instead.

Is there any way to introduce the vulnerable Japanes oil route from Borneo to the Japanese homeland to the scenario? Perhaps by removing the technologies that allow trade routes via ocean and sea squares from Japan? If so, the Allied could cut off the Japanese core from the oil ressources in Borneo by holding Singapure and conquering Formosa.

Of course, there is still the oil field near Mandalay and airports. The oil field could be moved north, and airports would have to loose their ability to allow air trade, which is IMHO unrealistic anyway. There is no way the US could have supported China with oil by air, as it is possible in the scenario. This would increase the importance of the Burma road to supply China, too.

 

[eric_A]

I just reproduced the bug with POWs: I started as Japan, captured a CW worker and moved it next to a CW unit. I expected the computer to recapture the worker, but it didn't, probably because the AI knew that it would not gain a unit. So I loaded the save as a MP game, with me being CW. When I attacked the POW it disappeared.

I noticed in the editor that POWs are not available to any nation. Perhaps that's the reason?

That was a "feature" of the original Firaxis scenario, the Nipponese Infantry
"enslaved" workers, which changes them from a worker to a POW, and POWs
can't be captured.

 

[El_Tigre]

Seems to me that if you capture a Prisoner of War, that it should be freed (ie emancipated back into the general population of our country).

But then there is no incentive to free POWs at all...

That would make more sense than turning them into slave workers of your own nation.

If you capture slaves of your own nationality, they will be regular workers again.

 

[Misfit_travel]

But wouldn't any city connected to the resource by roads or harbours be able to build them?

True, but if you created a kamikaze city improvement, you could restrict it being built to a specific location with the "Required goods must be within city radius" flag.

So, if you create a city improvement that costs as much as a factory, but produces a kamikaze unit every 5 turns, as the game goes on it could get rather expensive to invade the Japanese home island. That would make nukes a whole lot more attractive to research and build.

You should probably make sure that the kamikaze unit cannot be transported (or at least restrict them to an assault transport), so they don't get too stacked up in massive collections.

There is no reason why the allies could not build labour camps.

Aside from the fact that the Allies didn't use forced labour? I'd make a new form of government called "Japanese Monarchy" and make the forced labour require that form of government to be built. Between that restriction and the city based resource restriction, you limit it to being built only by the Japanese and only in the cities deemed appropriate.

In the long single player games I changed the drafting so that instead of
an infantry unit you get a crappy rifleman unit. I may do that in the
multiplayer games as well.

Rather than do that, why not up the "turn penalty for each drafted citizen" setting to something like 50 turns? You'd hit a brick wall pretty quickly if you do that, since a drafted city will effectively never have happy citizens again.
In my opinion allowing the drafting of the rifleman unit is virtually useless. They don't have any value other than enforcing city happiness. They are not even useful defenders. If you do allow the riflemen, then consider allowing upgrades of rifleman to regular infantry. At least then there is a gold for unit type tradeoff decision to make.

The other option is to allow drafting, but have it create worker units, not military units. The worker unit could be the equivalent of a POW for the purposes of production.

Misfit