WW2-Global

[Dazz_G]

Dazz_G

On U-boats an stealth against transports:

You have a point there. I will consider to change it.

Rocoteh

I have been giving this some more thought and I have come to the conclusion that whether you make Transports a stealth target or not, it isn't accurate.

Current situation ... Transports are not a stealth target - Destroyers aren't really needed - just escort your Transports with a Battleship. Ok, you won't spot the Sub sneaking up on you but he will have to attack the Battleship, not the Transport, and a Sub has very little chance of taking down the Battleship. Added bonus ... thanks to the strength of the Battleship, your Transport doesn't have much to worry about from surface ships either. This is what the AI does most of the time from what I have seen so far.

Alternative ... Transports are a stealth target - it doesn't matter what you escort the transport with ... any Sub can still sneak up and take it down. Even if you have a hundred Destroyers escorting, while this wouldn't make your Transport totally untouchable in real life, it would be VERY difficult for any Sub, but here, you could take the Transport out with ease as the program doesn't recognise the AntiSub benefits of 100 Destroyers versus 1 Sub. End result ... Destroyers are still not needed as you might as well still escort your transport with a Battleship ... afterall, it doesn't matter what you escort with - your Transport can still go down to a Stealthy Sub but at least the Battleship gives decent surface protection.

Because of the limitations within the program, the only REAL benefit to a Destroyer is that he can go hunting for Subs then attack them. Then again, if you have enough Battleships running about you will run over enemy Subs eventually ... and even though the Battleship cannot see the Sub, the Sub will go down every time.

Hopefully I have made this understandable.

To sum up, I don't think changing Transports to a Stealth Target would be correct. At least if things remain as they are, Transports are impervious to Subs as long as they are escorted by something - this is a bit unrealistic but at least it gives some AntiSub value to escorting ships albeit to ships that shouldn't have AntiSub abilities as well as those who should.

 

[Snorken]

If a transport were a stealth target i think an AI Sub would still attack the escort ship, but i'm not sure...

 

[eric_A]

If a transport were a stealth target i think an AI Sub would still attack the escort ship, but i'm not sure...

I believe you are correct about the AI, but since Dazz is setting up
a multiplayer game, he is possibly more concerned about what human
players would do. My comments below also concern human players.

Because destroyers have a large speed advantage over subs in this
scenario, I would deploy my destroyers in a wedge formation ahead of
my convoy to detect subs before they reach the transports. I would
also stack a couple of heavy ships with the convoy for close support.

If I found subs deployed in a line, I would try to blow a hole in the
line and sail through. If I found a large stack of subs, I would try to
reroute my convoys away from the subs.

In my opinion it is going to be difficult for subs to operate alone in the
scenario, which was how they tended to operate historically. I think
in this scenario I would deploy my subs to operate as much as possible
with my surface ships (this will not always be possible because they
are so slow).

I would be in favour of giving subs the stealth attack against transports
as I think they are going to need it to make them more effective. Other
things I would consider is giving them a bit more speed or making them
completly invisible until a certain tech is researched which allows destroyers
to be upgraded to ASW destroyers. This last option would probably be only
good for multiplayer as it would cause a lot of accidental wars. I did use it
in my TOS scenario, but in that case all civs are already at war or in a
locked alliance so it didn't cause problems.

Eric

 

[Sasebo]

Eric A: I have to disagree with you about the DDs, at least as to how they are used in WW2 Global. I did post a page or two ago what use I was getting out of each class,you may want to look at it, but I am sure others will have their own opinions too. I think giving subs more movement is a bad idea; it would take away some of the role CL have now. maybe it is just my playing in the Med mostly with navy, but it does not sem to me like that stealth atrribute is worth anything;I've yet to be surprised by a pile of subs.

This is due to what I use DDs for mostly; scouting and AA support. The subs are good to protect your coast from enemy ships because of their short range,that is why the CLs have a job as raiders. The CL and subs have nearly identical stats notice. The CLs AA ability is just a bonus so far as I am concerned.

I doubt that BBs would make practical escorts unless you are UK or USA though;no one else has enough, and they have much more important work to do then transport escort! BBs can die too; the AI does not usually attack them with small ships/subs that I have seen, but I have taken them down with subs, something to consider for MP. BBs are just too expensive to fill that role.

I mostly don't play MP so my comments were more for the single-player versions. For single player I think making transports stealth targets would be a big mistake; the AI does not build a lot of transports and if you let them be picked off that easily it just weakens them further. They will escort with BBs though which makes your work as a player a lot harder.

Rocoteh: My comments about making the subs visible was strictly intended to help with the AI starting wars, I was not considering the other aspects. The AI seems to know where my subs are regardless.

 

[Rocoteh]

I just made this experiment: (for both SP and Multi-player)

Stealth attack checked against both Transport and Destroyer.

Submarine attacks Transport and Destroyer in the same tile
and can make a stealth attack against Transport.

Now the interesting experiment:

Stealth attack checked against Transport but not against Destroyer.

Submarine attacks Transport and Destroyer in the same tile.

Submarine can not make a stealth attack against Transport.

Note experiment 3:

Stealth attack checked against both Transport and Battleship but not
against destroyer.

Submarine attacks Transport, Battleship and Destroyer in the same tile.

Submarine can make stealth attack against Battleship and Transport.

However if a Submarine attacks a tile with a destroyer and more
than 2 transports it will get stealth attack against the transports.

I will comment more on this tomorrow.


Rocoteh

Edit:

"Rocoteh: My comments about making the subs visible was strictly intended to help with the AI starting wars, I was not considering the other aspects. The AI seems to know where my subs are regardless." Sasebo

Yes, I understand that. For sure AI always knows where transports are!

Rocoteh

 

[Dazz_G]

According to the download figures there is a lot of interest in this scenario.

There are lots of us all playtesting and posting here so we can help the scenario progress.

So why are there so few who have downloaded the Multiplayer version ?

Probably the best way to move this scenario forward is by playtesting against other people and to this end I have organised a PBEM .....

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

but we are still waiting for another player to get it going.

Come on guys ... if you want to playtest this thing and do your part to help make this the best WW2 scenario out there ... if it isn't the best already ... then download the Multiplayer biq and sign up for the PBEM.

Thank you.

 

[Tantor]

Here`s a thing that has come to my mind. It might not be significant, but it is something that includes most WW2 and modern era scenarios. I find it unrealistic that armor and mechnized infantry may function prperly as a fighting force in all terrains. Tanks are mostly useless in mountains and jungle, and sometimes also in swamps. I suggest that at least tanks, but perhaps also mech. inf, needs roads to enter jungle and mountains. This will make infantry more important in some terrain types and will open new tactical possibilities. Roads may also be used to reflect important mountain passes and jungle roads, such as the "Burma Road" and protecting these roads will be very important. But of course, this suggestion may have negative effects on gameplay I have not anticipated and I understand perfecly if my suggestion is "overruled".

 

[Rocoteh]

Tantor,

I think this is a very good idea and I will probably implement
in version 1.3.

Moving mechanized units in mountains, jungle and swamps
(without roads) is impossible.

Thank you and welcome back with more comments.

Rocoteh

 

[Adler17]

Rocoteh, what about going away from CFC with the download only? I mean you could go to CDG and make here only a link. Oh this is not meant that the whole discussion here is closed, I only meant the download. Then you could add ALL the stuff.

Adler

 

[Rocoteh]

Rocoteh, what about going away from CFC with the download only? I mean you could go to CDG and make here only a link. Oh this is not meant that the whole discussion here is closed, I only meant the download. Then you could add ALL the stuff.

Adler

Adler,

Some hours ago I got very good news from Thunderfall:

The 100 MB limit refers only to scenarios uploaded at CFC.
Since this is not the case with WW2-Global the scenario can now
be expanded with new graphics.

I guess it will mean 40 MB more of graphics in the next version.

Rocoteh

 

[Adler17]

Excellent news!

Adler

P.S.: Here are new unit proposals:
http://www.cdgroup.org/forums/tbs/civ3/viewtopic.php?t=5076

 

[Rocoteh]

On Multiplayer

I am also surprised that the interest for Multiplayer is so low.

However as long as I wll work with scenario-creation its also
my intention to make MP-versions of the scenarios sinse I think
its important to support this aspect of Civ.

On Submarines

Is Subs get stealth attack against all units with the exception
of Destroyers then the qustion is if AI will be able to protect its
Battleships against Subs. If Destroyers will be the only units that
can see invisible and avoid stealth attacks from Subs it should give
them a special value. Then I think the idea eric_A mention is very
interesting: No units can detect invisible. It would no doubt give more
value to Subs in areas where air-units otherwise can strike against
detected Subs.

On further expansion of graphics in WW2-Global

Its now clear that it will be possible to include more graphics
in the scenario.
The first units I am thinking of is more Soviet air-units, Scharnhorst,
Admiral Graf Spee and ANZAC infantry.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

Excellent news!

Adler

P.S.: Here are new unit proposals:
http://www.cdgroup.org/forums/tbs/civ3/viewtopic.php?t=5076

Adler,

Thank you for the link.
Its very good.

My goal is to include a large number of new unit graphics in version 1.3,
so it will probably take some time until its released.

Rocoteh

Link to the current WW2-Global PBEM-game:
One place (Germany) still open!

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

 

[allin1joe]

Just so you know, I plan on downloading the multi-player version today. My 9 year old son is a HUGE history fan. I showed him this scenario and the first thing he asked me to do was to find the ship called the Arizona He about fell out of his chair when I found it. In any case, we are going to start up a HotSeat game with it, probably tonight. Just wanted to make sure you knew that your work on the multi-player version was appreciated.

Also, yesterday something happened that history buffs would scream at (but I enjoyed). I am America, and have just about wiped out the Japanes naval fleet, so I'm getting my invasion fleet ready. A message appeared on the screen "Soviet Russia has declared war on France". Of course, with the locked alliances, Britian, China and the United States followed suit. So, the axis powers now include Soviet Russia I was planning on declaring on them after I got Japan out of the way anyway, but I just wanted to give you a heads up on this. There might be some people who would hate to see this happen. Since I also planned on declaring war on Mexico later on, and was disappointed to see Canada was really Britian(so it would be impossible for me to declare on them), you can tell how much I'm worried about historical accuracy

 

[Rocoteh]

allin1joe,

"Just so you know, I plan on downloading the multi-player version today. My 9 year old son is a HUGE history fan. I showed him this scenario and the first thing he asked me to do was to find the ship called the Arizona He about fell out of his chair when I found it. In any case, we are going to start up a HotSeat game with it, probably tonight. Just wanted to make sure you knew that your work on the multi-player version was appreciated" allin1joe

I am very glad to hear that.

"There might be some people who would hate to see this happen. Since I also planned on declaring war on Mexico later on, and was disappointed to see Canada was really Britian(so it would be impossible for me to declare on them), you can tell how much I'm worried about historical accuracy "
allin1joe

This will for sure be an interesting play!

Thank you and welcome back.

Rocoteh

General comment on Multiplayer and PBEM:

I think interest for WW2-Global Multiplayer and PBEM will increase
soon. Its only some 3 weeks since the scenario was launched.

Link to the current WW2-Global PBEM-game:
One place (Germany) still open

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

 

[Silica_Pathways]

Btw, why the f*ck are Baltic states already in USSR in the begining ? They were occupied bit later, if u dunno that

 

[Rocoteh]

Btw, why the f*ck are Baltic states already in USSR in the begining ? They were occupied bit later, if u dunno that

Crash757,

Yes, I am aware of that.

However:

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed August 23 1939 decided the
faith for Poland and the Baltic states. There is no chance, I repeat:
no chance Germany had gone to war without the pact! Without
the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Germany would have faced a no-win
2 front war. Thus there were no way the Baltic states could avoid
to be occupied later.

Rocoteh

 

[Dazz_G]

Crash757,

Yes, I am aware of that.

However:

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed August 23 1939 decided the
faith for Poland and the Baltic states. There is no chance, I repeat:
no chance Germany had gone to war without the pact! Without
the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Germany would have faced a no-win
2 front war. Thus there were no way the Baltic states could avoid
to be occupied later.

Rocoteh

I think Rocoteh's reasoning on this is spot on and bearing in mind the limitations within the Civ3 model and the fact that implementing historical events after the game has started is impossible, I think he did the only thing he could to recreate this event ... that was to start the scenario with the Baltic States already in Russian hands.

 

[*nix*]

I have recently discoverede this fantastic site and have alreade enjoyed hours of gaming beceause of it (not to mention the hours spent on the site)! So a big thanks to all those entusiastic civplayers and creators out there.

To Rocotech
Another great one propably. I really enjoyed Barbarossa. I simply cannot find the Biq file for this scenario - WWII World. Help me, please. I dying here.

As i said - i'm new to this.

Nix

 

[Sasebo]

On Multiplayer

I am also surprised that the interest for Multiplayer is so low.

However as long as I wll work with scenario-creation its also
my intention to make MP-versions of the scenarios sinse I think
its important to support this aspect of Civ.

On Submarines

Is Subs get stealth attack against all units with the exception
of Destroyers then the qustion is if AI will be able to protect its
Battleships against Subs. If Destroyers will be the only units that
can see invisible and avoid stealth attacks from Subs it should give
them a special value. Then I think the idea eric_A mention is very
interesting: No units can detect invisible. It would no doubt give more
value to Subs in areas where air-units otherwise can strike against
detected Subs.

On further expansion of graphics in WW2-Global

Its now clear that it will be possible to include more graphics
in the scenario.
The first units I am thinking of is more Soviet air-units, Scharnhorst,
Admiral Graf Spee and ANZAC infantry.

Rocoteh

I'd play the multi-player version but I am not sure how to work a PBEM game since I've never done one. More to the point, I don't think I have the time to commit to it;I only play like 1-2 turns on my Slooooow computer every night. I don't think it would work out.

Protect the BBs from subs??? Ah, I don't think you need to worry about that,it takes like 5-6 to even dent them! You would lose around 9-12 at least killing one, it is not at all cost effective. If you can't stealth attack BB then subs have no chance vs. capital class ships! I used maybe half a dozen to weaken enemy BBs so my own BB can take them down,but it isn't cheap. So... even if no ships can see subs,won't we still be able to use other units to kill them once we do find them? I admit it sounds worth trying anyway!

No problems here with more graphics, could we get something more appropriate for the combat engineers? they look silly in those rags. What are ANZAC Infantry, I mean what will be their stats/function? UK already has Infantry and MG units.

France update for Rocoteh:
Week 38-UK and Italy have major conflicts in Med,many BBs die! This is due to the Italian navy heading west for the Atlantic! US declares war on Chile... Warsaw,Copenhagen fall; I take Bilbao and raze it to make more room for my cities. I kill 9 SS and 1 DD of Italy; I lose 1 SS,4 DD and trade a CA lost with Japan.

Week 39- Italians Burn Djibouti! ...I should have bought some troops there, they jumped me with a tank. Yugoslavia falls to Italy. Brussels, Amsterdam fall to Germany. I kill 13 SS,2 CL, and 1 DD of Italy, and 1 BC of Germany's. Lose 6 SS, 2 DD, and 1 CL doing it. I'm going to lose a lot more next turn since I had to leave a stack of subs out at sea to hit those subs. France's navy mostly starting at regular is a big problem, it is much more expensive to win compared to when I was playing Italy. Accurate though I think. This week also sees the end of the "phony war"; Germany hits the frontier with a vengeance and wipes out my units on the far NW coastal tile. I was mining when I should have been building forts, now I pay for it. Massive Ger. and Italian air raids accompany this. My 'safe' feeling from that last report has evaporated!

Week 40- I take Madrid and La Coruna, La Coruna self-razes. I needed that port! Take Murzak in Libya with Infantry and find out why it is better to attack with tanks...I win but costly. I put another stack of Infantry on that NW square and Germany kills them all again,penetrates to the wheat tile next to Paris...this is getting ugly. I lose all 9 SS I had to leave at sea last turn. My armor is almost free in Spain though, and I am not giving in even though Germany just hit me with an Army. more later...