Typhoon of Steel - Version 3

[Misfit_travel]

@Eric_A

Submarines don't have stealth vs Adv Destroyer and Destroyer Escort.
Adv Submarines don't have stealth vs CW Fast Battleship.
Adv Submarines have stealth vs submarines (3 basic types). Should they?
NOTE: I-Boats have stealth attack vs Betty Bomber.


PT Boats having stealth against much stronger ships than them is not really making them overpowerfull! I believe the PT-Boats is a good idea but I have not really found a good use for them yet. They are not really that good.
PT Boats have 1/3 of cost vs Adv Sub's, have 1/4 of their attack and are not invisible. So their only advantage seems to be movement, so I would suggest more of that and +1 Attack.

.

Luthor:

I disagree with you that PT Boats don't have any value. They are cheap and disposable scout units. They let the Allied player use them to scout the sea lanes in Indonesia (mostly) and Solomons (sometimes). They run ahead of the pack, spy out where the Jap units are, then the mainline fleet and air units can smack them.

Also, the moment they appear, the Jap player has to switch to building Assault transports. If he doesn't, he'll be bled as the Allied forces nail every transport regardless of how big a stack its in.

I think Eric_A has the correct level of balance with these units. Cheap, useful and not overpowering.

Personally, I prefer using air units (like the fighter) as scouts, and then hammering the Jap with mass air assaults, but I've seen the PT boat used quite skillfully in games as well. (Eric_A once used 3 Chinese built ones from Samoa to try and find my Jap fleet SW of Pearl).......

Regards
Misfit

 

[eric_A]

@Eric_A

Submarines don't have stealth vs Adv Destroyer and Destroyer Escort.
Adv Submarines don't have stealth vs CW Fast Battleship.
Adv Submarines have stealth vs submarines (3 basic types). Should they?
NOTE: I-Boats have stealth attack vs Betty Bomber.


PT Boats having stealth against much stronger ships than them is not really making them overpowerfull! I believe the PT-Boats is a good idea but I have not really found a good use for them yet. They are not really that good.
PT Boats have 1/3 of cost vs Adv Sub's, have 1/4 of their attack and are not invisible. So their only advantage seems to be movement, so I would suggest more of that and +1 Attack.

.

Luthor:
Thanks for that information. The CW fast battleship and the betty bomber
are bugs, I will fix that in the next version. The other ones, DE, etc were
all intentional.

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

Civilopedia says
"AA Cruisers have radar and can see subs."

But they can't detect Subs... glitch in the .txt or bug in the .biq ?

 

[eric_A]

Civilopedia says
"AA Cruisers have radar and can see subs."

But they can't detect Subs... glitch in the .txt or bug in the .biq ?

This was changed in version 3.06 or 3.07 but I forgot to change the
civilopedia, thanks.

 

[Cloner4000]

Hi, I am kinda of new here, but I think this map could few a few new kind of ground units. I mean, their are a more Japanese looking marine in Battle for Okinawa map and that could suit this very well. Also the graphic for marine weren't quick right as their guns looks like M16 which hadn't been invented yet. I think their should be different kind of ground units

Maybe you should put some units on Gudalcanal and other island that the major Island hopping campaign happened, I just think that thier were rarely any fights for the islands in the pacific.

Just a thought

Maybe there could be a truck units that can carries ground units over a greater distance act as a ground transports which can be used to transport slower moving units, Marines, GI, Infantry with the need for a completed road.

 

[eric_A]

Hi, I am kinda of new here, but I think this map could few a few new kind of ground units. I mean, their are a more Japanese looking marine in Battle for Okinawa map and that could suit this very well. Also the graphic for marine weren't quick right as their guns looks like M16 which hadn't been invented yet. I think their should be different kind of ground units

Maybe you should put some units on Gudalcanal and other island that the major Island hopping campaign happened, I just think that thier were rarely any fights for the islands in the pacific.

Just a thought

Maybe there could be a truck units that can carries ground units over a greater distance act as a ground transports which can be used to transport slower moving units, Marines, GI, Infantry with the need for a completed road.

I will check out the Okinawa scenario, I plan to improve the unit graphics
in Version 4.

Historically, Guadalcanal was undefended at the start of the war, that is
why the Japanese were able to take it so easily. In the single-player
Allied games, the island starts with a Japanese marine on the island.
In the single player Japan games or multiplayer it is up to you to try to
capture the island, it is a victory point location.

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

I have been envolved in two Multiplayer TOS games and I have a feeling that the game is unbalanced towards the Japanese. Please note that my comments have EVERYTHING to do with game balance and NOTHING to do with historical accuracy.

I think the initial setup is good, allowing sucessfull waves of attack by the Sons of Nippon in different places. What I think it's missing is the ability to strike back from the Allies, specially China and Commonwealth.

I think China should be stronger, making it hard to take. To take the complete China, the Japanese should REALLY have to commit forces there.
I am thinking that the Chinese could have some strong Immobile infantry or some very cheap defending units. The Guerilla's are pretty annoying but they don't do much more than annoy a full Japanese attack.

I think that Commonwealth should also have a much stronger economy (more factories and higher population) and more units. Some ideas are:
- Pre-placed wonders that gives fighters\troops.
- Place A LOT more (4x more?) infantry troops in Australia, including Marines. With few and slow transports this wouldn't make much of a difference early in the game but would make the Jap think twice before attacking Australia and allow the Commonwealth to make small counter-offensives near Australia.

I also think that the Allies should have more Techs from the start, specially the Tech that allows to build Marines.

 

[eric_A]

I have been envolved in two Multiplayer TOS games and I have a feeling that the game is unbalanced towards the Japanese. Please note that my comments have EVERYTHING to do with game balance and NOTHING to do with historical accuracy.

I think the initial setup is good, allowing sucessfull waves of attack by the Sons of Nippon in different places. What I think it's missing is the ability to strike back from the Allies, specially China and Commonwealth.

I think China should be stronger, making it hard to take. To take the complete China, the Japanese should REALLY have to commit forces there.
I am thinking that the Chinese could have some strong Immobile infantry or some very cheap defending units. The Guerilla's are pretty annoying but they don't do much more than annoy a full Japanese attack.

I think that Commonwealth should also have a much stronger economy (more factories and higher population) and more units. Some ideas are:
- Pre-placed wonders that gives fighters\troops.
- Place A LOT more (4x more?) infantry troops in Australia, including Marines. With few and slow transports this wouldn't make much of a difference early in the game but would make the Jap think twice before attacking Australia and allow the Commonwealth to make small counter-offensives near Australia.

I also think that the Allies should have more Techs from the start, specially the Tech that allows to build Marines.

Luthor:
I plan to change a lot of things for V4 of TOS. The allies will have more
techs, but they will not be tradable. And possibly a new map which goes
from Ceylon all the way to the Panama Canal.

 

[aksully]

And when you do release V4...I want a spot in the first PBEM!!! Also Eric, I think I mentioned this before in a previous post about Guadalcanal. I think in your SP versions having the IJN have the island with an airfield is reasonable because of the limitation of the AI. But in MP...it should perhaps start as an unoccupied VP location. Then make sure the IJN has a Trans available with a worker to be able to move towards the Island after the start of hostilities. As it is now..it starts as CW territory and the US cannot invade it unless the IJN does.

I like Luthor's comments about China. You know I don't like guerillas but stronger static garrison forces would make it a difficult choice for the IJA to decide what type of strategy to take.

Sully

 

[Tommy1234567890]

What the deleted i have been waiting for 2 weeks for the thread to continue where the deleted are u people???

Moderator Action: 3 day ban for language, and evading the autocensor whilst bumping a thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Cloner4000]

I want to make a statement, are Marine the only one that can make an assult from the sea, I mean, histroically, reg. army still do attack from the sea, because in my game, the enemy occupy the whole island with infantry so I can't land it with normal infantry, so either make Marine tech available to US and others Allies or I will get stuck here.

I agree with the fact that China need some strong def unit, otherwise a few tanks can completely overun the country. few unit can stand up against them.and often versus Human, they bombed my supply roads so my supply of resources so it need to be taken into account to.

 

[eric_A]

I want to make a statement, are Marine the only one that can make an assult from the sea, I mean, histroically, reg. army still do attack from the sea, because in my game, the enemy occupy the whole island with infantry so I can't land it with normal infantry, so either make Marine tech available to US and others Allies or I will get stuck here.

I agree with the fact that China need some strong def unit, otherwise a few tanks can completely overun the country. few unit can stand up against them.and often versus Human, they bombed my supply roads so my supply of resources so it need to be taken into account to.

Cloner:
In version 4 everyone will be able to build marines at start, except
China, but techs will not be tradable. And there will be some new
units for China plus some-autobuilding wonders, as there are in the
HOF scenario.

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

If the scenario is to be re-built here are some of my (personnal) preferences, for you to think about if they would fit in the overall new scenario:

- Limit Army power. My preference would be that an army would only take 1 unit (2 with Pentagon) but have a lot of traits: Radar, Destroy improvements, Detect invisible, maybe Stealth Attack, etc.
Armies can really unbalance the game. Not only in SP (for known reasons) but also MP if one side has more veteran\elite units AND is on the offensive (as the Japanese case in the current version).

- Put more focus on VP locations and less on unit killing. Even though it can give prestige and morale to sink an enemy BB or win a tough battle at Guadalcanal, the war was won by conquering ground. I wouldn't dare to say "at any cost", but that was the focus back then, even if it meant with high losses.
So my proposal would be to lower the VP points by unit killing and raise the location one.

- If no Tech trade, then maybe Techs should be cheaper, specially for the Allies.

- To simulate the "turn of the war" and to give the Allies some advantage in the end of the game, Allied units should be stronger. If the game is easy for Japan in the beginning, to re-conquer once Japan has set up his defenses is not.

- The battle for resources is interesting, but it should be possible to build a stronger unit without resources. Still weaker than std, but with a minimal fighting chance (not like the Rifleman).

 

[Misfit_travel]

What kills China and protects Australia is RAIL movement. While a stronger static unit in China might be helpful, TOS is pretty well balanced now.

I don't find myself building any Guerrilas in China, but I do use the one's I start with to pick off damaged Jap units and to take out artillery.

If you really want to slow the Jap down in China, eliminate artillery completely. That forces bombers to be used (and increases losses).

I'd suggest completing a rail link to just past Alice Springs and just short of Perth. That way the CW player can, with some initial effort, complete rail links to all major cities. That makes taking out Darwin a real priority for the Jap, else hordes of Allied troops will swarm over south Indonesia.

Regards
Misfit

 

[Misfit_travel]

If the scenario is to be re-built here are some of my (personnal) preferences, for you to think about if they would fit in the overall new scenario:

- Limit Army power. My preference would be that an army would only take 1 unit (2 with Pentagon) but have a lot of traits: Radar, Destroy improvements, Detect invisible, maybe Stealth Attack, etc.
Armies can really unbalance the game. Not only in SP (for known reasons) but also MP if one side has more veteran\elite units AND is on the offensive (as the Japanese case in the current version).

- Put more focus on VP locations and less on unit killing. Even though it can give prestige and morale to sink an enemy BB or win a tough battle at Guadalcanal, the war was won by conquering ground. I wouldn't dare to say "at any cost", but that was the focus back then, even if it meant with high losses.
So my proposal would be to lower the VP points by unit killing and raise the location one.

- If no Tech trade, then maybe Techs should be cheaper, specially for the Allies.

- To simulate the "turn of the war" and to give the Allies some advantage in the end of the game, Allied units should be stronger. If the game is easy for Japan in the beginning, to re-conquer once Japan has set up his defenses is not.

- The battle for resources is interesting, but it should be possible to build a stronger unit without resources. Still weaker than std, but with a minimal fighting chance (not like the Rifleman).

I agree with all of these. Realistically its CIV IV that is going to fix most of these limitations. Maybe Eric_A should wait and rebuild the scenario for CIV IV, its only a couple of months away......

Misfit

 

[Forever Civ]

Since recently replacing my computer, I am having trouble getting this scenario to work.

It worked fine on my old computer but since redownloading it I get a missing 'Art/Advisor/China_all.pcx' error. I have checked and the biqs and main art folders are all in the correct location although the Advisor folder only contains two files. I have tried downloading the Art folder again but no luck.

I have redownloaded various other scenarios successfully since changing my computer but not this one so I am a bit confused, to say the least.

Anyone any ideas what the problem might be ?

 

[eric_A]

Since recently replacing my computer, I am having trouble getting this scenario to work.

It worked fine on my old computer but since redownloading it I get a missing 'Art/Advisor/China_all.pcx' error. I have checked and the biqs and main art folders are all in the correct location although the Advisor folder only contains two files. I have tried downloading the Art folder again but no luck.

I have redownloaded various other scenarios successfully since changing my computer but not this one so I am a bit confused, to say the least.

Anyone any ideas what the problem might be ?

Forever Civ:
That file is in the following folder:
Civilization III\Conquests\Conquests\WWII in the Pacific\Art\Advisors

It is part of the original WW2 Conquest, not part of TOS. I'm thinking your
installation of Conquests did not complete.

 

[Forever Civ]

Forever Civ:
That file is in the following folder:
Civilization III\Conquests\Conquests\WWII in the Pacific\Art\Advisors

It is part of the original WW2 Conquest, not part of TOS. I'm thinking your
installation of Conquests did not complete.

You called it right eric_A. When I checked, the entire WWII Pacific as well as some other Conquests content was missing.

I put the missing stuff in place and ToS now runs fine.

Thanks for that eric.

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

Regarding Supporting Fleet, I think it only increases sea movement by one. However in the Civilopedia it states much more (Air Trade, Veteran Air Units).

I believe it's only a matter of correcting the Civilopedia.

Does anyone actually builds this Small Wonder? It requires researching a specific Tech AND then building a rather expensive Wonder (almost as much as the Military Academy).

 

[eric_A]

Regarding Supporting Fleet, I think it only increases sea movement by one. However in the Civilopedia it states much more (Air Trade, Veteran Air Units).

I believe it's only a matter of correcting the Civilopedia.

Does anyone actually builds this Small Wonder? It requires researching a specific Tech AND then building a rather expensive Wonder (almost as much as the Military Academy).

Luthor:
This is what the entry for the support fleet looks like on my computer: