Typhoon of Steel - Version 3

[El_Tigre]

You placed oases on most of the 1-tile islands!! They really do look like atolls now...

 

[El_Tigre]

Just some first impressions:

-1 Marine in San Diego: I really don't want to hinge a whole offensive against
a Japanese island on one Marine. If it looses, I have risked an entire fleet for
nothing. In effect, the US player still wants to research Amph. Warfare before
launching any kind of offensive. Maybe 1 or 2 Marines more?

- the Samoa unit is a regular Infantry, not an ANZAC Infantry. Deliberately?

- China looks... messy. Great! However, due to the craters and to the
strengthend Chinese defenses, the large Japanese cities on the mainland
probably won't be able to produce as much stuff as in V3.01. I have a feeling
that this might weaken Japanese production too much. I would suggest
increasing Japanese production capabilities either in Mandchuria or on the
islands itself in V4.

- I almost missed that Guerilla in Burma. You strengthened the CW position in
Burma, too. Have you had the impression that it was too easy to conquer?

- Mount Austen on Guadalcanal! I hope we will see some bloody battles
there...

 

[aksully]

I'm sure eric_A will think about changes in the initial unit placement if you can
provide him with the according data. However, there's more to consider: what
happens to those units as the scenario progresses? Are those changes going
to imbalance the game? For instance, adding more Japanese transport in the
Singapore area would enable Japan to rapidly advance towards Australia,
which would be historic inaccurat. Furthermore, the Dutch and British
position is already very weak. Strengthening Japan would probably be more
realistic, but may result in an untenable - and unrealistic - situation for the
Allies just a few turns later.QUOTE]

You mean as occurred in reality? That is why they did it. And in a very short space of time..the Allies will be dogpiling the poor Sons of Nippon!

Now Eric himself already followed my thinking before I even brought this up!
If you open up TOS V301 SP Long Allies you'll see Eric prepositioned Jap invasion troops in proper locations. I'd suggest doing that? The bottom line is anyone who plays the Jap will not be able to make historical moves the Japs made between 7-21 Dec 1941...the first gameplay period of TOS.

Again I'm just pointing out gameplay limitations...not criticism. This is already a work of art. The work Eric has put in on the Tech Tree additions is fantastic! I see that as a real strength of TOS.

I've already download the new copy and it opens! I'll mess with it over the next few days. Unfortunately, I have come down with the flu and I'm worn out just from typing this! I haven't been sick in 2 years!

Sully

 

[eric_A]

Just some first impressions:

-1 Marine in San Diego: I really don't want to hinge a whole offensive against
a Japanese island on one Marine. If it looses, I have risked an entire fleet for
nothing. In effect, the US player still wants to research Amph. Warfare before
launching any kind of offensive. Maybe 1 or 2 Marines more?

It will mean that placing a radar tower or an artillery or a flack gun
on a tile will no longer ensure that the allies cannot get ashore.
The allies did not really have much amphibious assault capability
in early 1942, but now they have a little; thats what I intended.

- the Samoa unit is a regular Infantry, not an ANZAC Infantry. Deliberately?

No, that's a mistake.

 

[El_Tigre]

Now Eric himself already followed my thinking before I even brought this up!
If you open up TOS V301 SP Long Allies you'll see Eric prepositioned Jap invasion troops in proper locations. I'd suggest doing that? The bottom line is anyone who plays the Jap will not be able to make historical moves the Japs made between 7-21 Dec 1941...the first gameplay period of TOS.

Prepositioning the units was a great addition for the SP campaigns! It gave
the AI's offensive the punch it sorely lacked in the Firaxis scenario. But in my
opinion, two reasons militate against doing the same in the MP scenario:

1. If I want to play the scenario according to what really happened, I should
certainly have the chance to. But what if I want to do something different?
What if someone wants to use the initial units to lauch a major offensive
against North America? Right now, the unit placement at the beginning of the
game allows for both, historic re-enactments and unhistoric experiments.

2. Actually, I think that prepositioned invasion troops would weaken Japan in
the medium and long term. Allied players would know exactly what units are
placed where, and could prepare accordingly. Soon more experienced players
would find out which Allied positions are tenable, and where Japan is weak. At
the moment Japan can surprise the Allies by concentrating troops on
certain targets, and by sidestepping others. The point is: the Allies don't
know what will happen! Prepositioning troops would make the game rather
predictable, and soon there would be "instruction sheets" for playing the
Allies. Very similar chains of events would be the result.

Don't get me wrong, aksully, I would love to see the scenario as accurate as
possible, but I think that giving the Japanese player a "non-imperative"
possibility to play according to history books is the best compromise between
gameplay and accuracy.

I eagerly await the new PBEM! China looks great, and I'm curious about what
will happen around Guadalcanal. Get well soon, aksully! We have a wave of flu
here in Germany, too, I'm (almost) the "last man standing" in my departement!

 

[El_Tigre]

How about placing the Marines at the cities eric_A reduced to airbases (Saipan,
Palau,...) in the transports next to them? This way the historic landings
could proceed on schedule, but the Japanese player has the possibility to use
them differently, too.

 

[eric_A]

How about placing the Marines at the cities eric_A reduced to airbases (Saipan,
Palau,...) in the transports next to them? This way the historic landings
could proceed on schedule, but the Japanese player has the possibility to use
them differently, too.

The editor does not allow you to place land units on sea tiles, even if
there is a transport there!

 

[aksully]

Thanks ET! I'm hanging in there. Glad you're well in GER! Where by the way?

Eric if you wouldn't mind could you do a revised Readme file that contains all the changes and appropriate info for version 305?

Playing Japan is going to be real challenge. Eric, don't fprget to send me the PBEM info. You've put a great deal of effort into this. Somehow...I think you should get paid!

Sully....off to bed in Abilene, TX

 

[eric_A]

Looks good Eric! Here's a link for Order of Battles (OOBs) for those interested.

http://www.niehorster.orbat.com/index.htm

And Eric..if there are things you need researched then maybe we can divy it up and reduce your workload?

I really like the unit icons you've matched up with the different ship classes. I was messing with Rocoteh's WWII global last nite which is a great piece of work and effort. But its striking when you select a unit (like transport) which shows the regular Civ3 icon. It certainly takes a great deal of effort to put these sort of things together!

Sully

Sully:
That site is great!

In V3.05 added a more destroyers and subs to bring the US and Japan up
to historical strength (less 10% for other commitments (Aleutians, Canal
Zone and keeping an eye on the Russians). If you can come up with some
names for them I would appreciate it.

 

[aksully]

Sully:
That site is great!

In V3.05 added a more destroyers and subs to bring the US and Japan up
to historical strength (less 10% for other commitments (Aleutians, Canal
Zone and keeping an eye on the Russians). If you to come up with some names for them I would appreciate it.

Eric, could you give me a breakdown of how many and what type you need by nationality? I'll get them back to you asap after I get that info!

Sully

 

[eric_A]

Eric, could you give me a breakdown of how many and what type you need by nationality? I'll get them back to you asap after I get that info!

Sully

I was thinking you could just load the game (or use the editor) and look
for US and Japanese DD and subs with no name.

 

[El_Tigre]

But isn't this kind of information already on the site, including location on Dec.
7th?

http://www.niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/_41_usn/pac-bat_destroyers.html

http://www.niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/_41_usn/pac-bat_destroyers_1.html

http://www.niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/_41_usn/pac-bat_destroyers_2.html

I can help to apply the data to the scenario, too, if that is the help you are
looking for. Maybe aksully and I can split up the work (SS - DD or Japan - Allies).
Every DD division represents one in-game unit, right?

 

[eric_A]

But isn't this kind of information already on the site, including location on Dec.
7th?

http://www.niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/_41_usn/pac-bat_destroyers.html

http://www.niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/_41_usn/pac-bat_destroyers_1.html

http://www.niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/_41_usn/pac-bat_destroyers_2.html

I can help to apply the data to the scenario, too, if that is the help you are
looking for. Maybe aksully and I can split up the work (SS - DD or Japan - Allies).
Every DD division represents one in-game unit, right?

I haven't had time to look through that entire site. I had a look at some of
the land unit info, but not the naval stuff yet.

Light cruisers are included in DD units, they count as 2 DDs, so you
may run out of DD divisons, you can give some DDs light cruiser
names if this happens.

The group of ships with the USS Idaho are ships transfered from the Atlantic
early in the war. I think I will surround them with some coastal tiles so their
arrival will be delayed a bit.

I think I will also move the main fleet in San Diego 4 or 5 tiles off the west
coast to allow them to deploy faster.

 

[El_Tigre]

Thanks ET! I'm hanging in there. Glad you're well in GER! Where by the way?

I'm living and studying in Bonn. Once the proud capital of West Germany, it is
now, after Germany's reunification, a distinguished but provincial town on the
banks of the Rhine river.

Light cruisers are included in DD units, they count as 2 DDs, so you
may run out of DD divisons, you can give some DDs light cruiser
names if this happens.

Okay, this is what I'm going to do: I'll make a list of all American DD division
and CLs, their names and their position on Dec. 7. I'll post the list here, then
open the V3.05 scenario file and compare my list to the units on the map.
Every difference between my list and the scenario will be posted.

 

[El_Tigre]

Here's the list, sorted by Division, which (almost) equals location. Bold ships
are flagships, I assumed you want to name the units in the scenario after the
flagship of every division. I ignored all other fleets (Minecraft, Service Train,
Aircraft, ...), although they feature some ships that might be considered
similar to a DD / CL.

Cruiser Division 3, 3 CL:

Richmond: underway off Peru
Concord : being overhauled (San Diego)
Trenton: Balboa (CZ)​

Cruiser Divison 9, 5 CL:

Phoenix, Helena: Pearl Harbor
Boise: underway off Cebu Island (PI)
Honolulu, St. Louis: being overhauled (Pearl Harbor)​

DD Division 1, 4 DD at Pearl Harbor:

Dewey, Hull, MacDonagh, Worden​

DD Division 2, 4 DD at Pearl Harbor:

Farragut, Dale, Monaghan, Aylwin​

DD Division 5, 4 DD at Pearl Harbor:

Reid, Conyngham, Cassin, Downes​

DD Division 6, 4 DD at Pearl Harbor:

Cummings, Case , Shaw, Tucker​

DD Division 7, 4 DD at Pearl Harbor:

Bagley, Blue, Helm, Henley​

DD Division 8, 4 DD at Pearl Harbor:

Mugford, Ralph Talbot, Patterson, Jarvis​

DD Division 9, 4 DD underway with CV Lexington, enroute Midway Island:

Mahan, Drayton, Lamson, Flusser​

DD Division 10, 4 DD in California (2 in San Diego, 2 being overhauled at Mare Island):

Crushings, Perkins, Smith, Preston​

DD Division 11, 4 DD underway with CV Enterprise enroute to Pearl Harbor:

Gridley, Craven, McCalla, Maury​

DD Division 12, 4 DD underway with CV Enterprise enroute to Pearl Harbor:

Dunlap, Fanning, Benham, Ellet​

DD Division 50, 4 DD in California (3 at San Diego, 1 at Mare Island):

Rathburne, Talbot, Waters, Dent​

DD Division 57, 4 DDs underway off Balikpapan (Borneo):

Alden, J.D. Edwards, Whipple, Edsall​

DD Division 58, 4 DDs underway off Tarakan (Borneo, enroute to Singapure):

Barker, Parrott, Bulmer, Stewart​

DD Division 59, 4 DDs:

Pope, John D. Ford: underway near Manila (Luzon)
Peary, Pillsbury: being overhauled (Cavite, Luzon)​

+CL Marblehead, off Tarakan (Borneo) (belongs to HQ in Manila)

+CL Raleigh, CL Detroit in Pearl Harbor (DD flotilla flagships)

+6 DD as Squadron Flagships

Phelps, Clark, Porter, Selfridge: Pearl Harbor
Balch: underway with CV Enterprise enroute to Pearl Harbor
Paul Jones: off Tarakan (Borneo, enroute to Singapore)​

 

[El_Tigre]

Here are the units as they should appear in the scenario. In case that the
Division was split, I assumed that the position of the flagship determines the
status of the unit in the scenario. Furthermore, I listed every CL, because I
don't know how you want to place 1/2 destroyer on the map. About units
being overhauled: do you want to place them damaged in port?


IN PORT:

- Pearl Harbor: CL Detroit, CL Raleigh, CL Phoenix, CL Helena, DD Dewey, DD
Farragut, DD Cassin, DD Case, DD Blue, DD Mugford + 1 "representative" for
the squadron flagships (either DD Phelps, DD Clark, DD Porter or DD Selfridge)
- Balboa (=Panama City?): CL Trenton
- San Diego: DD Rathburne


UNDERWAY:

- off Tarakan (just north of Sangkoelirang): CL Marblehead, DD Stewart
- off Balikpapan (between Sangkoelirang and Bandjermasin): DD J.D. Edwards
- off Cebu Island (exact location?): CL Boise
- escorting CV Lexington: DD Drayton
- escorting CV Enterprise: DD Maury, DD Dunlap
- near Manila (exact location?): DD John D. Ford


BEING OVERHAULED:

- San Diego: CL Concord, DD Crushings
- Pearl Harbor: CL Honolulu, CL St. Louis

Two squadron flagships would have to be substituted by 1/4 DD:
- DD Balch: underway with CV Enterprise
- DD Paul Jones: off Tarakan

Edit: just found this:
http://www.ww2pacific.com/notpearl.html
More editing soon...

 

[eric_A]

Thanks for all the info El_Tigre, I will make good use of that in the future,
but now I want to get the test game going.

We have 4 players, so we can have someone play both the Dutch and
the Chinese.

The line up is:

Sulley - Japan

Myself - Commonwealth

Misfit - USA

EL_Tigre - Are you OK with playing China +Dutch?

Sulley goes first so he has to set up the game.

Special rules:
No city razing
Guerillas cannot be load on transports
Limit of 4 air units per airbase
Should we ban city trading?

I will E-mail out the addresses of all player.

 

[aksully]

Sorry, Laying low to the flu...wake for brief periods....feeling better. But I'm up for the game so just email me the particulars Eric. After this game maybe we can really scrub the map and get all the units in place as they should using the link I posted.

I'm very happy to have bumped into you guys! Its a real honor to help you with your scenario Eric!

Sully

 

[El_Tigre]

China and the Dutch it is! I vote for no city trading at all.

I want to check my list with the site I posted before comparing it to the to
the scenario. While I'm on it, I'll verify the position of the CAs, too, because
some of their current positions must be wrong. The status of the American
BBs and CVs are obvious, I guess, so submarines are the only ship class left.
Every Division (6 ships) one unit?

I've got some bad news about China: Foochow and Taiyuan were definitely
Japanese in 1941. If you want to change things on the continent, then it'll be
a lot of work. Tell me if you want more information, or if you want to leave
things as they are in China.

 

[Misfit_travel]

I agree that "no city trading" should be added to the rules.

Foochow and Taiyuan should remain Chinese, even if this is not historically accurate. China needs those fronts to distract the Japanese advance.

That should be a game compromise vs. historical accuracy (IMHO).

Misfit