W-I-P: Storm Over the Pacifc
- Thread starter El Justo
- Start date
Figured I would make an appearance here. 
El Justo and I have been exchanging a pile of emails as we work out the parameters for not only the naval units, but we are also discussing the interaction with air units as well.
With the limitations of the Civ 3 engine (Units in general can only be defined by attack, defense, and hit points), it is tougher to get things to interact with each other correctly compared to AoI simply because air power plays such an important role in the Pacific War.
I had taken a long break from messing with anything Civ 3, so when El Justo came calling, I was ready to jump back in and its fun to try to figure all this stuff out.
El Justo and I have been exchanging a pile of emails as we work out the parameters for not only the naval units, but we are also discussing the interaction with air units as well.
With the limitations of the Civ 3 engine (Units in general can only be defined by attack, defense, and hit points), it is tougher to get things to interact with each other correctly compared to AoI simply because air power plays such an important role in the Pacific War.
I had taken a long break from messing with anything Civ 3, so when El Justo came calling, I was ready to jump back in and its fun to try to figure all this stuff out.
El Justo
Deity
there's several months in front of us before that will happen 
El Justo
Deity
good luck and tell him i say hi 
El Justo
Deity
update :
more painstaking r&d. this time, US air. i painstaking, obviously, due to the plethora of aircraft employed in the pacific. but it's not so bad. air units will likely form the core gameplay. so a special emphasis needs, or needed, to be paid to them, in the research phase and subsequently in the design phase, and how they all fit with one another, balance, etc.
i present beta stats for all US air units :
note the resource requirements - Imperialism aka Colonialism is avalaiable to the US position in its 4 aussie cities, pearl, and a spot in alaska. USA is, obviously, in the US only. Pacific Islands speaks for itself also. all these pac islands locations will never be able to grow to city size 2 or 3. they will be stuck at 1 and will all use the airbase gfx to represent really what these islands were, air strips and logistical hubs.
went back and forth on a variety of different stat arrangements, especially for the land based bombers. for now, i will roll with a big rof for the heavies but less bombardment #. the need to differentiate trumps almost everything with the stats. a definite wip though. will know more once tested. but on paper, i like it for the time being
i snuck some tech notes into this sheet. by that i mean if you look to the right, i put in when they'll be unlocked and you can see the sequence in which all the aircraft appear. not listed is what each aircraft obsolotes. no straight upgrading of air units in this scenario. instead, each class will basically obsolete another class.
torpedo bombers and dive bombers have always been a wierd thing for civ3. torpedo bombers launching sorties on land? weird. but i will have to accept this quirk. tb planes will have a 1 rof with a big bombardment no, and of course, lethal sea bombardment.
land based bombers, no lethal sea flag. we do not want piles and piles of heavies wiping out stacks of capital ships each turn (prospecitvely). so no lethal sea bombardment for them. also, a case could be made for the high altitude bomb releases for the heavies, their inability to strike a moving target at sea, and other non-low altitude bombing issues as a malus of sorts. dive bombers and other attack aircraft could really get up into the grill of the enemy. so higher bomb no's (but lower rof's compared to med and heavy bombers) for them.
obligatory in-game screenie from testing ini stuff : notice the color scheme on the f8f and the color of the ocean tiles. sweet
more painstaking r&d. this time, US air. i painstaking, obviously, due to the plethora of aircraft employed in the pacific. but it's not so bad. air units will likely form the core gameplay. so a special emphasis needs, or needed, to be paid to them, in the research phase and subsequently in the design phase, and how they all fit with one another, balance, etc.
i present beta stats for all US air units :
note the resource requirements - Imperialism aka Colonialism is avalaiable to the US position in its 4 aussie cities, pearl, and a spot in alaska. USA is, obviously, in the US only. Pacific Islands speaks for itself also. all these pac islands locations will never be able to grow to city size 2 or 3. they will be stuck at 1 and will all use the airbase gfx to represent really what these islands were, air strips and logistical hubs.
went back and forth on a variety of different stat arrangements, especially for the land based bombers. for now, i will roll with a big rof for the heavies but less bombardment #. the need to differentiate trumps almost everything with the stats. a definite wip though. will know more once tested. but on paper, i like it for the time being
i snuck some tech notes into this sheet. by that i mean if you look to the right, i put in when they'll be unlocked and you can see the sequence in which all the aircraft appear. not listed is what each aircraft obsolotes. no straight upgrading of air units in this scenario. instead, each class will basically obsolete another class.
torpedo bombers and dive bombers have always been a wierd thing for civ3. torpedo bombers launching sorties on land? weird. but i will have to accept this quirk. tb planes will have a 1 rof with a big bombardment no, and of course, lethal sea bombardment.
land based bombers, no lethal sea flag. we do not want piles and piles of heavies wiping out stacks of capital ships each turn (prospecitvely). so no lethal sea bombardment for them. also, a case could be made for the high altitude bomb releases for the heavies, their inability to strike a moving target at sea, and other non-low altitude bombing issues as a malus of sorts. dive bombers and other attack aircraft could really get up into the grill of the enemy. so higher bomb no's (but lower rof's compared to med and heavy bombers) for them.
obligatory in-game screenie from testing ini stuff : notice the color scheme on the f8f and the color of the ocean tiles. sweet
scratchthepitch
King
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2010
- Messages
- 798
B-36? Are you extending the scenario to include the Korean War?
B-36? Are you extending the scenario to include the Korean War?
Actually, the B-36 had its origins before the start of the Pacific war when it was feared that Nazi Germany may actually invade and knock the British out of the war. Specifications were issued to produce a bomber capable of bombing Germany from the US (Sort of like the German Amerika bomber program). In 1943, with a bomber required to be able to reach out and hit Japan, the USAAF ordered 100 off the drawing board with a delivery date of the first to be by August 1945 and the last by October 1946.
Consolidated/Convair got delayed, but did get the prototype done by August 1945. It flew for the first time a year later. There was really no sense of urgency behind the program since it was clear the war was coming to a close and the plane would not be needed. Interest was revived during the cold war despite the obsolete nature of the plane (monster subsonic plane), but nothing else could match the payload/range, especially the early jets.
Just talking to El Justo, I think he is looking at the B36 as a very end game unit that may come into play if the game goes long enough. This would be in line with other scenarios for "what if" units. AoI had several battleships that were planned, but not completed by any of the major powers.
scratchthepitch
King
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2010
- Messages
- 798
If you include the B-36, you guys might want to include some jets since the USA had 2 just operational (P-59 & P-80) by the war's end and Japan had one under development, along with a rocket propelled fighter. The British had the Meteor and the Vampire. By the time the B-36 was operational (1949), the USA already had 2nd generation jet fighters entering service. The B-36 might prove somewhat unbalancing to the game if other aircraft contemporary to it are not included. Including the aircraft under development at war's end might be a way to spice up the very last part of the game and give a player something to look forward to as a "what if" late game changer. Especially for the Japanese. 
El Justo
Deity
iirc, the early models of the b-36 were all prop driven. so the b-36 we think of with the "six turnin', four burnin'" is the cold war bomber. like Kly mentioned, these beasts were ordered in the middle of the war. so that's why i included them. their stats really aren't game breakers imo. we shall see though once testing starts, if we can even get that far (hopefully we will!).
i gave a good look at first gen jet aircraft. but i'll be frank here - they just didn't have the range to be really effective, tactically speaking, in the pacific theater. we're talking about an aircraft (first gen jets) that guzzled aviation fuel, and had a max combat range of a few hundred miles. they were too large at that time to operate off the decks of the carriers too. consider that the mustang and the thunderbolt, both pretty rugged aircraft, ruled the skies by the end of the war and we can see why the USAAF did not deploy jet fighters in theater. so i guess it really boils down to two things : was a particular aircraft intended for deployment in theater ? at some point at least ? and 2. did the aircraft (or any other hardware for that matter) actually serve in theater ? if not, then surely it wouldn't go into Storm Over the Pacific there are a lot of what-if's. no doubt. but we have to sort of draw the line at some point.
i gave a good look at first gen jet aircraft. but i'll be frank here - they just didn't have the range to be really effective, tactically speaking, in the pacific theater. we're talking about an aircraft (first gen jets) that guzzled aviation fuel, and had a max combat range of a few hundred miles. they were too large at that time to operate off the decks of the carriers too. consider that the mustang and the thunderbolt, both pretty rugged aircraft, ruled the skies by the end of the war and we can see why the USAAF did not deploy jet fighters in theater. so i guess it really boils down to two things : was a particular aircraft intended for deployment in theater ? at some point at least ? and 2. did the aircraft (or any other hardware for that matter) actually serve in theater ? if not, then surely it wouldn't go into Storm Over the Pacific
there are a lot of what-if's. no doubt. but we have to sort of draw the line at some point.scratchthepitch
King
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2010
- Messages
- 798
Fair enough. Did you figure out a way to have the carriers load small aircraft, but not the big ones, like the strategic bombers?
El Justo
Deity
yes, tactical missile flag will restrict it.
mrniceguy101
Beggar
I hate to be critical in that you always put a great deal of thought and effort behind all your scenarios but is including the B-26 as a buildable unit really worth it or historically accurate, other than for purposes of game play balance? Others more knowledgeable than me are free to correct me but from what I understand the B-26's usage in the Pacific theater was extremely limited, especially when compared with the B-24 and B-25. I know a few, less than a full squadron were used during the battle of Midway and a squadron or two may have flown out of Australia for a short while but as far as I know that was it. For purposes of historically accuracy wouldn't it be better to make them a pre-placed unbuildable unit?
El Justo
Deity
yeah, it could be rearranged some in that it was superseded pretty quickly. but it will be present.
Part of the issue for jets in the Pacific theater is what El Justo mentions and that is range. Most of the jet interest was directed towards Europe simply to counter what Germany had.
The USN did not get into the jet business until towards the end of 1946 when a P-80 was modified with appropriate carrier gear (arrestor hook, etc) and did trials on the FDR (Midway class). From a USN standpoint of view towards Japan, jets were unneeded since the aircraft they had were vastly superior to anything Japan was putting in the air at the time.
The Japanese version of the Me-262 resulted in 2 aircraft being built and the rest being canceled, because of, surprise, engine troubles. The Japanese decided to cancel the whole thing based on the strategic materials required to build the engines and felt they could quite literally get more bang for the strategic material buck by concentrating on Oka and kamikazie type aircraft for defense of the home islands.
The Japanese version of the Me 163 never had a successful test flight before the end of the war. This project was more likely to be carried out due to the lower costs in strategic materials and they were much closer to working out the difficulties with the engine. It would not have surprised me in the least if the Japanese had also used this aircraft as a sort of air to air kamikazie to take out the B-29's.
The USN did not get into the jet business until towards the end of 1946 when a P-80 was modified with appropriate carrier gear (arrestor hook, etc) and did trials on the FDR (Midway class). From a USN standpoint of view towards Japan, jets were unneeded since the aircraft they had were vastly superior to anything Japan was putting in the air at the time.
The Japanese version of the Me-262 resulted in 2 aircraft being built and the rest being canceled, because of, surprise, engine troubles. The Japanese decided to cancel the whole thing based on the strategic materials required to build the engines and felt they could quite literally get more bang for the strategic material buck by concentrating on Oka and kamikazie type aircraft for defense of the home islands.
The Japanese version of the Me 163 never had a successful test flight before the end of the war. This project was more likely to be carried out due to the lower costs in strategic materials and they were much closer to working out the difficulties with the engine. It would not have surprised me in the least if the Japanese had also used this aircraft as a sort of air to air kamikazie to take out the B-29's.
Just a bit of a tease and update in trying to work on the units for the naval stuff.
For most of the positions, I have to figure out what did (and didn't) serve in the Pacific and in some cases, make some assumptions.
An example is the British. While the Royal navy is huge and has many classes of ships, not having to figure out stats for ship classes that never appeared in the Pacific theater helps reduce workload. Case in point are the Rodney/Nelson. Neither saw any service in the Pacific during WW2, so they won't be represented in the game. The Hood won't be represented either for obvious reasons. Both the Revenge and Queen Elizabeth class battleships will be in however. The Vanguard is an example of a "what if" unit. IMO, if she is in the game, she will be represented in the Pacific theater.
I have done the most work on the Japanese ships simply because I know they were all in the Pacific, so it makes it easier to start with.
Something else I am working on with the starting navy stuff is the question of class consolidation. Are ship stats for some classes so close to each other that I can sort of merge them together? This will help reduce El Justo's workload in creating entry work in the editor and when it comes to placing units. (Easier to place 4 of a combined class than 2 each of 2 classes for example).
The scenario also faces a tech tree challenge when it comes to naval units. In AoI, naval science advanced so far over the period covered by the game that it was easy to work in multiple classes for nearly every ship type for most every power. First there were battleships, then dreadnaughts, upgraded dreadnaughts, super dreadnaughts and even beyond. For the Pacific war, we are looking at a more compressed time line (4-5 years compared to decades for AoI). In addition, the major powers came out with extremely few progressive classes in capital ships during the war.
The USN is probably the poster child for this with various classes of heavy cruiser to start the war with and the Baltimore class under construction. No newer class of cruiser made it even close to the war. Battleships? Iowa was laid down before the war. Montana class was never completed. Carriers: Essex class during the war and the war ended before the Midway class were available for service. Same for light cruisers. For destroyers, it was Fletcher, Sumner and Gearing classes.
So far for the Japanese, I have most of their larger surface ships accounted for.
Furitaka and Aoba class CA will be merged together (After modernization, 6 8 inch guns, 4 4.7" AA, 8 24" torpedos, 3 inch belt, 1 inch deck armor and 34.7 knots speed for both classes, so roll them together as one 4 ship class)
Myoko class (close to Takao class in terms of armament and speed, but less armor)
Takao class
Mogami class
Tone class
For the big ships:
Kongo class
Fuso class
Ise class
Nagato class
Yamato class
One of the other issues El Justo and I have been discussing is how to handle the fact that the Japanese did several conversions during the war on some of their capital ships in light of what happen at Midway. (Specifically, the conversions of the Ise class, Shinano, and Mogami). While we don't have all the details worked out, the conversions won't be available for the Ise class or the Mogami (part of the reason was the Ise class were never used as aircraft platforms and instead wound up mounting extra AA guns over time on the availble flight deck space). Shinano may be a different issue. Construction had all but stopped on her as a battleship due to the amount of time and materials required to finish her as a Yamato class battleship. Construction was restarted as a carrier, but even with this, she was not launched until Oct of 1944 and was missing quite a bit of equipment/gear before she would have been completed.
Some other conversions were the Oi and Kitakami. They started the war as torpedo cruisers, but were never used as such and were quickly turned into fast transports. (This is likely how they will appear in the game).
At some point, I will try to get more of a spread sheet flavor with stats, etc.
For most of the positions, I have to figure out what did (and didn't) serve in the Pacific and in some cases, make some assumptions.
An example is the British. While the Royal navy is huge and has many classes of ships, not having to figure out stats for ship classes that never appeared in the Pacific theater helps reduce workload. Case in point are the Rodney/Nelson. Neither saw any service in the Pacific during WW2, so they won't be represented in the game. The Hood won't be represented either for obvious reasons. Both the Revenge and Queen Elizabeth class battleships will be in however. The Vanguard is an example of a "what if" unit. IMO, if she is in the game, she will be represented in the Pacific theater.
I have done the most work on the Japanese ships simply because I know they were all in the Pacific, so it makes it easier to start with.
Something else I am working on with the starting navy stuff is the question of class consolidation. Are ship stats for some classes so close to each other that I can sort of merge them together? This will help reduce El Justo's workload in creating entry work in the editor and when it comes to placing units. (Easier to place 4 of a combined class than 2 each of 2 classes for example).
The scenario also faces a tech tree challenge when it comes to naval units. In AoI, naval science advanced so far over the period covered by the game that it was easy to work in multiple classes for nearly every ship type for most every power. First there were battleships, then dreadnaughts, upgraded dreadnaughts, super dreadnaughts and even beyond. For the Pacific war, we are looking at a more compressed time line (4-5 years compared to decades for AoI). In addition, the major powers came out with extremely few progressive classes in capital ships during the war.
The USN is probably the poster child for this with various classes of heavy cruiser to start the war with and the Baltimore class under construction. No newer class of cruiser made it even close to the war. Battleships? Iowa was laid down before the war. Montana class was never completed. Carriers: Essex class during the war and the war ended before the Midway class were available for service. Same for light cruisers. For destroyers, it was Fletcher, Sumner and Gearing classes.
So far for the Japanese, I have most of their larger surface ships accounted for.
Furitaka and Aoba class CA will be merged together (After modernization, 6 8 inch guns, 4 4.7" AA, 8 24" torpedos, 3 inch belt, 1 inch deck armor and 34.7 knots speed for both classes, so roll them together as one 4 ship class)
Myoko class (close to Takao class in terms of armament and speed, but less armor)
Takao class
Mogami class
Tone class
For the big ships:
Kongo class
Fuso class
Ise class
Nagato class
Yamato class
One of the other issues El Justo and I have been discussing is how to handle the fact that the Japanese did several conversions during the war on some of their capital ships in light of what happen at Midway. (Specifically, the conversions of the Ise class, Shinano, and Mogami). While we don't have all the details worked out, the conversions won't be available for the Ise class or the Mogami (part of the reason was the Ise class were never used as aircraft platforms and instead wound up mounting extra AA guns over time on the availble flight deck space). Shinano may be a different issue. Construction had all but stopped on her as a battleship due to the amount of time and materials required to finish her as a Yamato class battleship. Construction was restarted as a carrier, but even with this, she was not launched until Oct of 1944 and was missing quite a bit of equipment/gear before she would have been completed.
Some other conversions were the Oi and Kitakami. They started the war as torpedo cruisers, but were never used as such and were quickly turned into fast transports. (This is likely how they will appear in the game).
At some point, I will try to get more of a spread sheet flavor with stats, etc.
Howdy Klyden,
Sounds like you are developing a solid plan. If there is any models you know of that you need now but we do not have the unit for let me know and I will see what I cannot do.
Sounds like you are developing a solid plan. If there is any models you know of that you need now but we do not have the unit for let me know and I will see what I cannot do.
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,868
There was a progress for the ships by updating and adding more antiaircraft guns, electronics and better planes (especially for carriers) to the existing ships. In Storm over the Pacific (or how El Justo will call it), there can be a greater focus to this fact.
El Justo,
have you ever thought on BLITZ for those short-range fighter-bombers and torpedo-bombers ?
Bringing that in to the equation adds a new view for the AI and human. Long-range heavy bombers have more punch, but the close support aircraft can hit twice with movement of 2.
It´s hard (impossible) to get real life difference in the work-load between close support dive-bombers and long-range medium and heavy bombers.
However a torpedo bomber with blitz and lethal sea give that aircraft a true punch vs ship.
Also with blitz those short range bombers will pack a good punch but you will need to get them up close on airfields or carriers.
Looking at your nice picture on values for aircraft I see that you have made the ROF and cost the main difference on these bombers. But I thought the ROF was just plain added on in the mind of the AI when selection to build was determined.
My issue on this is that the AI will use heavy-bombers on mass even on close support and just disregard the smaller ones like P-47.
Also the PBY catalina have a detect inv set on your scheme.
However those it really work with aircraft ???
I thought the game only permitted this on ships and landunits ...
Extra is not any aircraft having leathal land units. The close support once like the P-47 P-51.
Perhaps even giving the thought on having the dive-bombers Daunltess having lethal land and not sea.
The divebombers could then come in at the end finishing off those units that the bigger bombers earlier have soften up on land before the Marines hits the beaches.
Same with shipping. Dauntless attack to injure and then torpedos to sink the bugger.
have you ever thought on BLITZ for those short-range fighter-bombers and torpedo-bombers ?
Bringing that in to the equation adds a new view for the AI and human. Long-range heavy bombers have more punch, but the close support aircraft can hit twice with movement of 2.
It´s hard (impossible) to get real life difference in the work-load between close support dive-bombers and long-range medium and heavy bombers.
However a torpedo bomber with blitz and lethal sea give that aircraft a true punch vs ship.
Also with blitz those short range bombers will pack a good punch but you will need to get them up close on airfields or carriers.
Looking at your nice picture on values for aircraft I see that you have made the ROF and cost the main difference on these bombers. But I thought the ROF was just plain added on in the mind of the AI when selection to build was determined.
My issue on this is that the AI will use heavy-bombers on mass even on close support and just disregard the smaller ones like P-47.
Also the PBY catalina have a detect inv set on your scheme.
However those it really work with aircraft ???
I thought the game only permitted this on ships and landunits ...
Extra is not any aircraft having leathal land units. The close support once like the P-47 P-51.
Perhaps even giving the thought on having the dive-bombers Daunltess having lethal land and not sea.
The divebombers could then come in at the end finishing off those units that the bigger bombers earlier have soften up on land before the Marines hits the beaches.
Same with shipping. Dauntless attack to injure and then torpedos to sink the bugger.
Similar threads
