WW2-Global

[Rocoteh]

Mei,

Thank you for the report.

I intend to make some changes for Britain in version 1.3.

Production in Britain itself is to low now and production in the
Empire is to high.
Sudan for example has a combined production of 21 shields.
That is to high and will be changed. 1939 Sudan had only
6 million in population with a fraction living in the cities.

"The turn after my last report, Germany declared war on Holland! Both Amsterdam and Brussles fell within two turns, but I moved my tank/ infantry force over the channel in a transport and now control Amsterdam, though the relentless attacks have meant I have pulled my tanks out and have only garrisoned two British Infantry as to avoid massive losses" Mei

It will be very interesting to see how long you can hold these positions.

"The USSR is fighting Germany (as are Norway/ Denmark) but in both of those wars, nothing has really happened." Mei

It seems like the more forces a Civ have the more trigger-happy AI will be!

"Regarding Japan, I am still unable to make progress, but they have taken Foochow and can attack Hong Kong if they wanted to, so a couple of Indian units have been sent over there to support the garrison. I'm not going to make an actual assault until I get some stronger weapons, but if I can hold onto Hong Kong it should prove useful for attacking the mainland of Japan"
Mei

Yes, and it will also take away Japanese pressure on China.

"The German AI has done nothing against my resource- razing (they now have no resources whatsoever, except those they import) and seem to be living without any roads, or ships, though they have managed to destroy a fortress (!) in the Manginot Line.
That's all so far. I'll try and update a bit sooner next time" Mei

I think this strategy is very interesting. It should pay of heavy later.

Thank you and welcome back.

Rocoteh

 

[GoodGame]

The T-34 tank would be an appropriate UU.

A few things I have learned about Russia - Cossacks give Russia a Golden Age! This seems ill timed since it comes early in the game if the Russians can find one victory for a Cossack (I attacked Turkey). Suggest eliminate the UU or change it to another unit later in the tech tree (presuming you are trying to get something realistic I would hardly call 1939 a Golden Age for Russia - maybe 1943?).

 

[WhyPlayEngland?]

My two cents

Great game!

but...

I was thinking Spain should have a non-aggression pact with all other nations.... at least with the axis. I dont like the idea of Spain, after saying "thank you" to Germany and Italy for helping out in their civil war, turning around and slapping them in the face by attacking. Also with Britain/France because Spain knew it had nothing to gain from them - besides Gibraltar (big deal)- should they fight. Spain could never have hoped for a land bound victory against France.

I also think that naval units should be banded together to in task forces and many different task forces should exist, eg, Heavy carrier, light carrier, Bombading, transport, recon, sub wolfpacks and so on and so forth. I think this will speed the game and have a greater depiction of what would happen if two fleets truely did encounter each other as my elite BB in port can hop out of port attack a group of vessels led by a BB, kill it while the rest of its fleets sits back and watches.

Wonders are the only way to prevent razing. Sux for you though having to put them all in!! hehe


Best MOD out there mate!!!

 

[emzie]

Great scenario, Rocoteh. It's mind-blowing.

I do have one small issue. I hate to be picky, and this is going to be picky, but you've underpowered Finland and made a small mistake with the mines south of Helsinki. In 1939, the Fins and Soviets were at war (the Winter War) and the Finns utterly humiliated the Soviets. In this scenario though, they have a few infantry with worse stats. A few are on fortifications, yes, but they won't last a turn.

They should really be given a fortress much like the Magonet line. The Mannerheim line was actually a tougher nut to crack, but is only represented by barricades.

Also, the mine fields. Finland's involvement was critical because it kept the Soviet navy in Leningrad. They couldn't leave until peace was signed. While the minefields represent this, the Soviets can sail right through Tallinn. Making the Germans divert resources and capitol ships to the Baltic to deal with the Soviet navy puts a strain on the Atlantic theatre.

My suggestions: Finland needs her own infantry (much like Thailand has her own) that are better than the Soviets (9.14?). They also need a fortress line. And the German mines need to be moved.

It might seem trivial, but the Finns were vital to Germany. They could have taken Leningrad if Mannerheim wanted. It also creates a situation in which the Soviets must divert resources to the north continually. Right now, it's a simple nut to crack.

That's what I did for my slightly modified version atleast. Again, it's an amazing scenario. You've really done a great job

 

[Rocoteh]

The T-34 tank would be an appropriate UU.

GoodGame,

Yes I agree.

However in version 1.3 I will probably delete the Golden Age
for all Civs.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

WhyPlayEngland,

Thank you.

"I was thinking Spain should have a non-aggression pact with all other nations.... at least with the axis. I dont like the idea of Spain, after saying "thank you" to Germany and Italy for helping out in their civil war, turning around and slapping them in the face by attacking. Also with Britain/France because Spain knew it had nothing to gain from them - besides Gibraltar (big deal)- should they fight. Spain could never have hoped for a land bound victory against France."WhyPlayEngland

Yes, you are right. The problem is that you can not pre-set a
non-aggression pact with the current diplomatic module.

"I also think that naval units should be banded together to in task forces and many different task forces should exist, eg, Heavy carrier, light carrier, Bombading, transport, recon, sub wolfpacks and so on and so forth. I think this will speed the game and have a greater depiction of what would happen if two fleets truely did encounter each other as my elite BB in port can hop out of port attack a group of vessels led by a BB, kill it while the rest of its fleets sits back and watches" WhyPlayEngland

Yes it would be great with a task force system. Again: The current
game-engine does not allow it. We can only hope for Civ 4 with
regard to that.

Thank you and welcome back.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

augurey,

Thank you

"I do have one small issue. I hate to be picky, and this is going to be picky, but you've underpowered Finland and made a small mistake with the mines south of Helsinki. In 1939, the Fins and Soviets were at war (the Winter War) and the Finns utterly humiliated the Soviets. In this scenario though, they have a few infantry with worse stats. A few are on fortifications, yes, but they won't last a turn.

They should really be given a fortress much like the Magonet line. The Mannerheim line was actually a tougher nut to crack, but is only represented by barricades." augurey

Since the scenario start in September Finland are at pre-mobilisation
level. However with the fact that the Winter War started already
in November in mind I will change the Order of Battle for Finland.
It will give a more realistic result.

"Also, the mine fields. Finland's involvement was critical because it kept the Soviet navy in Leningrad. They couldn't leave until peace was signed. While the minefields represent this, the Soviets can sail right through Tallinn. Making the Germans divert resources and capitol ships to the Baltic to deal with the Soviet navy puts a strain on the Atlantic theatre.

My suggestions: Finland needs her own infantry (much like Thailand has her own) that are better than the Soviets (9.14?). They also need a fortress line. And the German mines need to be moved" augurey

I overlooked the Tallinn-factor. Thank you for reporting it.
This scenario is huge and there are always improvements to do.
All your suggestions on changes are very good and they will be
implemented in version 1.3.

Thank you for the comments. I hope I will hear from you again.

Rocoteh

 

[Adler17]

Rocoteh, let the Naval aspect the same as it is now. I will test 1.3 and 1.4. After that we should think what to do with 1.5.

Adler

 

[Rocoteh]

Rocoteh, let the Naval aspect the same as it is now. I will test 1.3 and 1.4. After that we should think what to do with 1.5.

Adler

Adler,

Yes I have decided that so it will be.
The naval aspect will be unchanged in 1.3 and 1.4.
There is more to lose then to gain changing it now.

I will first deliver a (hopefully) bug-free version 1.3 with
also many changes such as new city-stats.

Then with regard to version 1.4 I will focus on the graphic expansion,
since it will be a great expansion.

Rocoteh

 

[bogdanSUPERIUS]

But shouldn't IJN Kongo-class BBs have to be BCs or any way faster (up to 6 moves) coz those ships speed was 30 knots and at least Tone-, Mogami and Takao-class BA shold to be 1 move slover then DDs maybe then also 1 move cost at coast.. I'm not shore how it is in 1.2 coz I still play 1.1..

 

[KristiB]

Well, if you can figure out how to stop wars from being declared with ships running into subs, I'm all for keeping the naval units as they are...

One thing you might want to consider as well. It seems that the AI is fairly passive once war is actually declared. Maybe some of the aggression level should be turned up, especially on AI like Germany and Japan. Even Russia was very aggressive in attacking once they had the equipment for it.

It's an easy enough change for us to make ourselves, but still, most people who playtest will probably keep whatever default settings you set.

 

[Adler17]

The Kongo class were indeed battlecruiser. In ww1 after the defeat of Jutland the British wanted to buy all 4 ships (Kongo, Hiei, Kirishima and Haruna).
However I saw that the Scharnhorst class is also described as battlecruiser. This is not true. It was indeed a fast ship, but so were Bismarck and Iowa too. The only lack the Scharnhorst class had was the main armament. Nevertheless due to the protection and the tonnage, 35.000 ts, it was a battleship and no battlecruiser. Although this error is commonly made.

Adler

 

[Rocoteh]

Well, if you can figure out how to stop wars from being declared with ships running into subs, I'm all for keeping the naval units as they are...

One thing you might want to consider as well. It seems that the AI is fairly passive once war is actually declared. Maybe some of the aggression level should be turned up, especially on AI like Germany and Japan. Even Russia was very aggressive in attacking once they had the equipment for it.

It's an easy enough change for us to make ourselves, but still, most people who playtest will probably keep whatever default settings you set.

KristiB,

Yes I will make experiments with aggression levels.

Setting aggression level to minimum do not seem to have any
impact on AI.
My guess is that its the strenght of forces on hand for AI that will
decide aggression level.
That is: The more forces a Civ have the more aggressive and
trigger-happy AI will handle it.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

But shouldn't IJN Kongo-class BBs have to be BCs or any way faster (up to 6 moves) coz those ships speed was 30 knots and at least Tone-, Mogami and Takao-class BA shold to be 1 move slover then DDs maybe then also 1 move cost at coast.. I'm not shore how it is in 1.2 coz I still play 1.1..

bogdanSUPERIUS,

The Kongo class was built before and during WW1 as Battlecruisers.

The were however rebuilt and the new definition was Battleships.

With regard to Gneisenau and Scharnhorst they have in US and Britain
always been rated as Battlecruisers.

Important is though that their official rating in Germany was Battleships.
German sources also rates these ships as Battleships.

In WW2-Global they will be named Gneisenau-class after the system
I used in TGW.

Rocoteh

Interested in WW2-Multiplayer? Follow the ongoing PBEM-game
at CFC:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=109319]

 

[Adler17]

So will they be rerated as battleships? I knew that the Kongo class was refitted but also think if the Kongo class now represents a battleship the Gneisenau class must be the same.
Oh if you are using new flavour units use the Gneisenau for both ships by Wyrm. It is better than the Scharnhorst he made.

Adler

 

[Rocoteh]

So will they be rerated as battleships? I knew that the Kongo class was refitted but also think if the Kongo class now represents a battleship the Gneisenau class must be the same.
Oh if you are using new flavour units use the Gneisenau for both ships by Wyrm. It is better than the Scharnhorst he made.

Adler

Adler,

I think in terms of Capital ships. Thus most Capital ships have been
named x-class. When I add Gneisenau and Scharnhorst it will be
the Gneisenau-class. It will be possible to build more ships of the
same class. The reason to why I think in terms of Capital ships is
that during WW2 it was less important if a Capital ship was rated
as Battleship or Battlecruiser compared to WW1.

During WW1 it really mattered if a ship was rated as Battleship
or Battlecruiser when it came to how the ship was used.

This did not hold true during WW2.
(Ships rated as Battlecruisers was easy to count September 1939.)

With regard to graphics I agree. Gneisenau is better.


Rocoteh

 

[allin1joe]

Just wanted to give an update on my game as the Americans. I am in week 7 of 1940.

-- The Japanese fleet is basically gone. It has 1 task force left I believe. This includes a battleship, but I am not sure what else. The AI has them tied up in harbor at the moment. I put a Destroyer within sight range of Tokyo to try to lure them out, but they sent out a sub instead. Who said the AI was dumb?? I'd say about 50% of my fleet is fortfied off my Western coast, with small fleets guarding Hawaii and the Panama Canal. I've lost maybe 15-20 smaller ships and subs with no major losses to this point. My aircraft carriers haven't even left my coast.

-- I now control all islands in the Pacific up to Okinawa (should this end in A or in O? I always thought A, but it's O in the scenario). Japan launched 2-3 counter attacks, but since the CIV3 engine stinks for naval invasions, each one was squashed except for 1. I lost the southern most Phillipine city (I forget the name now) for about 3 turns before I was able to re-capture it. That's my only loss so far. I have even made enough to rush an off-shore platform in Hawaii and one other island in an effort to get them productive as well. Hawii is about 10 turns away from a factory, so it's close to being a unit producing city.

-- I have 2 transports in the Pacific close to Japan, with 2 more sitting in San Francisco waiting for troops. I have 1 army(built thanks to the Military Academy) filled with Marines, some individual Marine units(most have been airlifted to the theatre but I wanted a couple on board my transport too), a couple of tanks, and some heavy artillery building for the assault on the Japanese mainland. My land army is still very small though.

-- Mainland America is starting to produce at a decent rate. I have about 4 stacks of 3 workers each building roads/mines/railroads(only on flat terrain right now) in an effort to increase shield output. Since the early turns were all naval warfare, all of the cities concentrated on building factories/hydro plants/manufacturing plants/culture. New York can now build a Marine unit in 5 turns. All border towns have every culture building at my disposal in an effort to push the Canadian and Mexican borders back a bit. It seems to be working.

So, the Japanese are in serious trouble. Since Russia is at war with the allies, they have been able to concentrate on the Chinese in Asia, but haven't made much progress. I am debating between taking the mainland or their Asia holding first. The reason for the debate is because I do not know how long I can hold Tokyo without it flipping back, so that points to me taking Asia first. But, with me being at war with Russia, if I take the Asian cities first, I have to keep them well defended. I LOVE the fact that Russia is a wild card, and not locked into an alliance with anyone. It definately adds a little spice to the game

We beat the US Navy's advantage to death earlier, so I won't bother re-hashing it here. However, I definately have control over the Pacific with a fleet of about 30 ships in the Japanese area, and a large fleet still fortified off the west coast. I plan on placing subs or destroyers in strategic places in the Pacific so I can monitor everything, and pull my island defenders to the front line as I don't really have to worry about an invasion force any longer. Plus, each island has an airport so I can defend them quickly and easily if I have too.

Your starting situation for America is right on IMO. They needed to ramp up their production ability in the first couple of years, and I think you simulated that very well. I have some of the larger coastal cities producing pretty well, as well as Chicago, but that's about it. The others need massive help from workers, and time to grow before they can start spitting out anything worthwhile in a decent amount of time. The fact we started with no workers also was a plus, as it slowed down development even further. I probably won't have most of my inner cities producing until mid 1941 or so.

I looked through the tech tree, and I didn't see the B-17. Did I miss it?

 

[eric_A]

I am also playing the USA using the multiplayer version in single
player mode. On turn 3 my French and British Allies got into a
dispute with the Neutrals, so now I am forced to invade Mexico
to secure the Panama Canal!!

 

[allin1joe]

I am also playing the USA using the multiplayer version in single
player mode. On turn 3 my French and British Allies got into a
dispute with the Neutrals, so now I am forced to invade Mexico
to secure the Panama Canal!!

Interesting. Britian got into a war with Brazil, but for some reason, I was never pulled into it. I have been in war with Netherlands/Low Countries, Thailand and one other neutral that I can't remember, but this didn't cause the "cascade" others have talked about. I've never had Mexico at war with me (not yet anyway, I plan on invading after I get the mainland a little more productive ).

 

[eric_A]

Interesting. Britian got into a war with Brazil, but for some reason, I was never pulled into it. I have been in war with Netherlands/Low Countries, Thailand and one other neutral that I can't remember, but this didn't cause the "cascade" others have talked about. I've never had Mexico at war with me (not yet anyway, I plan on invading after I get the mainland a little more productive ).

I'm using the multiplayer version in which all the neutrals have been
combined into a single Civ. So I'm now at war with all of South America.