Typhoon of Steel - Version 3

[eric_A]

I still think Truk needs greater build capability for this to be effective. It takes forever for any naval / air unit to be built there.

Misfit

I'm not sure that is a bad thing. Historically Truk was a major airbase and
naval repair facility, but had little manufacturing capability.

 

[aksully]

All of the above sound reasonable to me. I've been thinking along the lines of the DD as a transport and like your ideas Eric. Perhaps you could designate them a DE, using a standard Jap DD icon. Has the same speed as a regular DD, but halve the A and D ratings and give it a 1 unit transport capability for troops and workers. But not able to carry tanks or artillery. Maybe create 3 or 4 to start with.

I'd also like to suggest creating a more accurate OOB for the Pearl Harbor Striking Force.
There were 2 CA's Chikuma and Tone. So add one and rename CA Haguro to the other.
Add CL Abukuma
There were 11 DD's present (not 2 as in scenario). Rename the two to Tanikaze and Kasumi, and add; Akigumo, Hamakaze, Kagero, Sazanami, Ushio, Arare, Isokaze, Shiranuhi, and Urakaze.

Then there's the issues of the Jap subs and their initial dispostion at the start of hostilities. There were approximately 20 ranging from Wake to PH and the West Coast.

Just throwing this out. I'm pretty excited about this revised scenario!
Sully

 

[El_Tigre]

I am going to remove airlift but extend the range for paratroops, so they
can still hop from island to island by making a series of drops, It's
the best compromise I can think of.

Sounds good!

In version 3.05 I am giving Noumea and the airfield at Espiritu Santos to the
US. This will give them some presence in the South Pacific. These were
free French colonies and they were used extensively by the US during
the Solomons battles. Espiritu was a B-17 base and Noumea was used
as a port by Halsey's fleet.

I was thinking along the same lines. However, my idea was (far) more
complicated: create one or two barbarian explorers in the Solomon Islands.
Add the "build city" flag to explorers, but don't check "settle" in the AI
strategies box (so that the AI won't found a city). As soon as either side
captures the explorer, the human player can build a new base (Guadalcanal,
Tulagi, Noumea,...). The problem is that the explorer could be moved so some
other place, so I guess giving Noumea to the US would be a little inaccurate,
but more practicable.

In general, such a US base would be a strong incentive for an early Japanese
offensive, too. Just make sure that Japan has the potential to establish an
enduring presence in that area. The initial Marines in Truk are probably
not enough to withstand even a minor Allied offensive, because
reinforcements would have to come all the way from Japan. A Japanese
destroyer-transport would effect all theatres of war, with incalculable
consequences.

 

[El_Tigre]

Interesting idea. I can honestly say that I pay zero
attention to the Solomons in the game's I've played previously. I didn't need
the VP locations, and the expose risk to the Japanese player was too high to
justify. It was easier to just pound the crap out of China. If you add some VP
locations to Solomons, consider removing one from China (I'd suggest getting
rid of Sian).

I would consider removing all VP locations from China. Japan gains more
than enough VPs by taking over Chinese cities. Getting rid of the Chinese
front itself should be reward enough for such inaccurate historic behavior in
the scenario.

Historically Truk was a major airbase and
naval repair facility, but had little manufacturing capability.

It's gameplay vs. historical accuracy.

 

[eric_A]

All of the above sound reasonable to me. I've been thinking along the lines of the DD as a transport and like your ideas Eric. Perhaps you could designate them a DE, using a standard Jap DD icon. Has the same speed as a regular DD, but halve the A and D ratings and give it a 1 unit transport capability for troops and workers. But not able to carry tanks or artillery. Maybe create 3 or 4 to start with.

I'd also like to suggest creating a more accurate OOB for the Pearl Harbor Striking Force.
There were 2 CA's Chikuma and Tone. So add one and rename CA Haguro to the other.
Add CL Abukuma
There were 11 DD's present (not 2 as in scenario). Rename the two to Tanikaze and Kasumi, and add; Akigumo, Hamakaze, Kagero, Sazanami, Ushio, Arare, Isokaze, Shiranuhi, and Urakaze.

Then there's the issues of the Jap subs and their initial dispostion at the start of hostilities. There were approximately 20 ranging from Wake to PH and the West Coast.

Just throwing this out. I'm pretty excited about this revised scenario!
Sully

In TOS each heavy cruiser unit represents 2 ships.
There are no CLs, except for anti-aircraft cruisers.

Each destroyer, which should probably be called something like
"light surface forces", repesents:
4 DDs
or 2 DDs+1CL

Subs units also represent 4 subs.

Transport units: about 10 ships of 10,000 tons each.

 

[Misfit_travel]

I would consider removing all VP locations from China. Japan gains more
than enough VPs by taking over Chinese cities. Getting rid of the Chinese
front itself should be reward enough for such inaccurate historic behavior in
the scenario.


It's gameplay vs. historical accuracy.

I agree with the gameplay vs. historical accuracy statement with regard to Truk's manufacturing capability. In order for Japan to mount a credible and sustainable campaign in the Solomon theatre some tweaking should be needed.

I think taking all the VP locations out of China is a little drastic. Leaving 2 in China and 1 in Rangoon is a pretty good compromise. Taking out all of China is a pretty hard job (against an human at least). It does involve committing a huge amount of force to do it for a number of turns. Leaving no VP locations will just convince Japan to wack them for a couple of turns, bomb all the roads into rubble, then leave them to rot.

Misfit

 

[aksully]

In TOS each heavy cruiser unit represents 2 ships.
There are no CLs, except for anti-aircraft cruisers.

Each destroyer, which should probably be called something like
"light surface forces", repesents:
4 DDs
or 2 DDs+1CL

Subs units also represent 4 subs.

Transport units: about 10 ships of 10,000 tons each.

Ok Eric, I get it..might then consider adding one more DD and sub to the PH Striking force.

Its interesting as things are tossed around I'm reminded of the Japanese Strategic plan..flawed as it was.

1) Destruction of the US Pacific Fleet
2) Conquest of the PI's, Wake, Guam, Singapore, and Sumatra
3) Sieze Java and the rest of the Dutch holdings
4) Development of the Malayan and Indonesian resources of oil and rubber
5) Lastly the defeat of China

Yet it seems like China is more a priority to us in the game play. But I agree with Misfits that it probably wouldn't be wise to eliminate all the VPs in China.

Sully

 

[aksully]

Was going through the game this evening and found a couple of things. There is no description for the Heavy Bomber Plant Small Wonder (loaded the SP Japan LG). Also, the aircraft on the Jap carriers should all be the same...Vals, Kates, Zekes. One has two Zeke groups and another has two Kates. I'm amazed at how solid you've built the scenario Eric! I have yet to have it crash during play. Good going!
Sully

 

[aksully]

Still playing the Long SP Jap player I found that the Japanese player cannot produce Zeros, Vals, Kates, or Bettys. Not an option to build in any existing Japanese city. Don't see the ability to produce light tanks either. Paratroopers landing all over the place....love that!

Sully

 

[El_Tigre]

Still playing the Long SP Jap player I found that the Japanese player cannot produce Zeros, Vals, Kates, or Bettys. Not an option to build in any existing Japanese city. Don't see the ability to produce light tanks either. Paratroopers landing all over the place....love that!

Sully

You have to conquer an oil resource before you can build planes and tanks.
Considering your knowledge about the Japanese military, I guess you know
where to find it.

 

[aksully]

You have to conquer an oil resource before you can build planes and tanks.
Considering your knowledge about the Japanese military, I guess you know
where to find it.

Thanks ET, I knew that !! That's what I get for jumping from one new mod to the other and staying up late doing so!! Can yo sell me a little oil refinery??? I mean I'm trying to push my Paratroopers out the door to secure that oil!

I've been starting a new game after turn one checking out each of the different nationalities to get a feel for each's gameplay. When I started to play as the Japs last nite I was so use to having abundant flowing oil as the Allies...well I forgot about the little thing in the fine print that says...REQUIRES OIL !!

I've enjoyed your ideas of improving the importance of play outside of China.
Sully

 

[El_Tigre]

I've enjoyed your ideas of improving the importance of play outside of China.
Sully

Actually, I haven't even started yet. So far, Eric has been very quiet about
China, and I don't know if he really wants to open this can of worms.

 

[El_Tigre]

I think taking all the VP locations out of China is a little drastic. Leaving 2 in China and 1 in Rangoon is a pretty good compromise. Taking out all of China is a pretty hard job (against an human at least).

It should be an impossible job.

It does involve committing a huge amount of force to do it for a number of turns.

I would love to see a PBEM where Japan has to commit this force to the
Solomon Islands campaign. And I would like to see Japan win this scenario
without having to eliminate China first. By removing the 3 VP locations in
China (I never talked about the one in Rangoon), I want to discourage the
Japanese player to concentrate on the mainland campaign (except Burma and
Singapure).

Leaving no VP locations will just convince Japan to wack them for a couple of turns, bomb all the roads into rubble, then leave them to rot.

That's the idea behind it!
For me, the actual problem is how to prevent a relatively intact China from
eliminating the Japanese presence on the mainland.

 

[aksully]

It should be an impossible job.
I would love to see a PBEM where Japan has to commit this force to the
Solomon Islands campaign. And I would like to see Japan win this scenario
without having to eliminate China first. By removing the 3 VP locations in
China (I never talked about the one in Rangoon), I want to discourage the
Japanese player to concentrate on the mainland campaign (except Burma and
Singapure).

That's the idea behind it!
For me, the actual problem is how to prevent a relatively intact China from
eliminating the Japanese presence on the mainland.

Well in the historical realm this was the problem Japan faced since the Army and Navy had two distinct and DIFFERENT plans on the use of force. So the Army was focused on China and the PI and the Navy pretty much everything else.

That spills out here into the game. Where you got a lack of force to handle all of the Navy's objectives while having a ton of force in China but little sea transport to get it elsewhere. That's why you see so much play in China and little so little in say the Solomons.

I'm anxious to see what Eric comes up with in the new revision.

Sully

 

[Misfit_travel]

One of the key ways to slow down the China campaign is to eliminate rails and roads. The key tactical reason China falls so quickly is that Japan can mass tremendous amount of force on very limited territory. Most Japanese players shamelessly use zero cost rail movement to quickly shift force from theatre to theatre in China, overwhelming local Chinese forces. The Japanese player bleeds China to death with concentrated strikes, taking little or no losses in return.

If you want to build a more realistic China campaign, here are my thoughts:

1) eliminate all rail movement from the game
- this prevents huge instantaneous swings of units
- makes mobile units (like light tanks) extremely valuable
- increase road movement to 4-5 tiles instead of 3 per MP

2) change movement structure
- implement cost of movement of all terrain of 2 mps
- make certain unit types (like Japanese inf., guerrila) ignore movement cost of forest, jungle type terrain
- make certain unit types (like tanks) ignore movement cost of open terrain (grassland / plains)
- thus all infantry (except guerrilla and jap inf.) will only move 1 tile per turn
- tanks will be deadly in open terrain, but slow everywhere else

3) make China's basic infantry a 3-7 or 4-6 unit. (strong on defense, weak on offense)
- makes it MUCH harder for Japan to hack their way through
- makes it equally hard for China to attack effectively offensively
- add a later game Chinese infantry unit that is more balanced (like the 7-7 anzac infantry unit)
- restrict China's ability to build tanks to medium tanks only (thus making it a mid game tech discovery and prevent early game light tank armies. this will reduce China's early game mobility)

That would have a major impact in China, and a minor impact elsewhere (like Australia and mainland U.S.). Australia would suffer somewhat in the sense that it would take some time to get troops from the production centers on the east coast to staging bases on the west coast. (You could counter that by making Anzac infantry 2 mps but not give them any ignore terrain settings).

Regards
Misfit

 

[El_Tigre]

That's... radical. However, point 3) is almost identical with what I had in mind for
China. But why that 7-7 Infantry unit?

For the time being, just a quick note to 1): You don't have to eliminate railroads
from the entire scenario, just from the mainland! Reduce all rails to roads, and
make it impossible for workers to build them. RR in Australia and the US (and
Japan) could be left intact. Two problems: 1. Japan will try to bomb those
(irreplaceable) railroads 2. It wouldn't be historic accurate.

Sidenote: this continous railway system from Pusan so Singapure, did it really
exist? Maybe the network could be broken into smaller pieces, and worker costs
for building railroads considerably increased (doubled? tripled?). This would
emphasize the importance of protecting your railway system against (Chinese)
bombardment and guerillas. With the new Chinese Infantry unit, the war would
focus more on supply lines than on cities.

 

[eric_A]

Sidenote: this continous railway system from Pusan so Singapure, did it really
exist? Maybe the network could be broken into smaller pieces, and worker costs
for building railroads considerably increased (doubled? tripled?). This would
emphasize the importance of protecting your railway system against (Chinese)
bombardment and guerillas. With the new Chinese Infantry unit, the war would
focus more on supply lines than on cities.

The 1941 map in the West Point atlas shows a disconnect in the railway
system in Southern China, probably goods were loaded onto barges and
shipped along the river in the gap. I'll add that (or should I say remove?).

Also since China and Japan had been fighting since 1937, there
should be some battle damage to the roads and rails in the front
area.

 

[Misfit_travel]

The second generation Chinese infantry doesn't have to be 7-7, it could just as easily mirror the Japanese 6-5 unit as well. The exact strength would have to be determined by game play to find the right balance.

I believe the key thing should be that Japanese conquest of China needs to be slowed down, without allowing the Chinese an unrealistic early chance to seriously threaten Japanese cities along the coast.

You might consider the points I made radical, but they were implemented (in a similar form) in the ACWC3C series and made a big difference in multiplayer game play.

Misfit

 

[eric_A]

The second generation Chinese infantry doesn't have to be 7-7, it could just as easily mirror the Japanese 6-5 unit as well. The exact strength would have to be determined by game play to find the right balance.

I believe the key thing should be that Japanese conquest of China needs to be slowed down, without allowing the Chinese an unrealistic early chance to seriously threaten Japanese cities along the coast.

You might consider the points I made radical, but they were implemented (in a similar form) in the ACWC3C series and made a big difference in multiplayer game play.

Misfit

One way to make the China front more static for V3.05, which will not
have new units types, would be to replace some of the starting infantry
(both Chinese and Japanese) and light tanks with machine gun units.

For V4.00 I will be adding new units, and will be a bit more radical.

 

[El_Tigre]

I believe the key thing should be that Japanese conquest of China needs to be slowed down, without allowing the Chinese an unrealistic early chance to seriously threaten Japanese cities along the coast.

Exactly. An offensive in China shouldn't be impossible, but should have serious
consequences.

A quote from page 1:

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.

Will V3.05 already have field guns? Together with a new Chinese Infantry, this
would seriously hamper the Japanese offensive, as it would take one more
turn to position the almighty artillery, and Japan couldn't capture Chinese and
British artillery anymore.

The 1941 map in the West Point atlas shows a disconnect in the railway
system in Southern China, probably goods were loaded onto barges and
shipped along the river in the gap. I'll add that (or should I say remove?).

Are you going to increase worker turns for building railroads, too? If not,
those gaps can be closed very quickly.