WW2-Global

Adler17 said:
Rocoteh I don´t think it is a wise decision to delete the South American states. Some of them were neutral, some of them sided the allies very soon (Brazil) while others tended to become German allies (Argentina). So I do not think they should be deleted. It is just fine so. And in no way ahistorical.

Adler

Adler,

Yes I agree. I have decided that the basic version will include
South America.
Then if many people want a version with South America excluded
I will produce it.

Again: The basic version, which always will have top-priority
will include South America. After all it is WW2-Global!

Rocoteh
 
Adler17 said:
Rocoteh I don´t think it is a wise decision to delete the South American states. Some of them were neutral, some of them sided the allies very soon (Brazil) while others tended to become German allies (Argentina). So I do not think they should be deleted. It is just fine so. And in no way ahistorical.

Adler

You could maybe even add "flavors" to some of the neutrals, to simulate these leanings. As far as I can figure, the flavors affect the starting attitudes, as well as being used to direct AI research (obviously not an issue here). I too would not like to see South America go away, it's such a lovely continent. Making Mexico a little less appetizing to an expansionist USA isn't a bad idea though, either with more garrisons or the landmark jungle idea.
 
allin1joe said:
Interesting thought on South America. Can you lock them into an alliance with everyone? I am not sure if you can have an alliance with 2 civs at war with each other, but I figured it's worth a shot. I don't want to see South America removed. Maybe an Ok compromise would be for South America to be in a locked alliance with the Allies?

Now, keep in mind that this is coming from a guy who's first move with the US has always been to invade Mexico. It just makes sense. It expands production, connects the mainland with Panama, and it gives me something to do while I am building for my large scale invasion. Yes, I could have fun with the Japanese navy, but that's beside the point :) I wouldn't cry if this ability was removed though. Heck, when I first got the game, I figured my first move would be to invade Canada :)

allin1joe,

As mentioned earlier I have decided that South America will
stay in the scenario, although I am prepared to a version where its
excluded.

Feedback will determine if I will produce such a version or not.

Rocoteh
 
clearbeard said:
You could maybe even add "flavors" to some of the neutrals, to simulate these leanings. As far as I can figure, the flavors affect the starting attitudes, as well as being used to direct AI research (obviously not an issue here). I too would not like to see South America go away, it's such a lovely continent. Making Mexico a little less appetizing to an expansionist USA isn't a bad idea though, either with more garrisons or the landmark jungle idea.

clearbeard,

Its unclear what "flavors" really have impact on.

My conclusion is that we only can be sure that it has impact
on research. Its possible though "flavors" can have impact on other
subjects. What I know Firaxis have never made any comment whether
so is the case or not.

Rocoteh
 
clearbeard said:
@Rocoteh

Should the UK be able to build P-32 Lightnings? I'm not a big historian, but wasn't that just a US plane? UK has the Firefly just a little bit later that fits the same role with almost the same stats (a few less bombard actually, and more expensive; another case of a later unit being worse than an earlier one if the P-32 stays).

clearbeard,

You are right, the P-38 should not be available to Britain.

Thank you for reporting the bug.

Rocoteh
 
clearbeard said:
Roco didn't take the time to edit the 'pedia. In post 1930 in this thread I uploaded a version I wrote that at least has the "unlisted" stats like HP bonuses for all the units. I think Roco is planning on including it in 1.6, but it's certainly usable now if you want to dl it. It's purely statistics, no background or suggestions on use or anything, but I've found it useful.

clearbeard,

If you change "take the time" with "had the time" its correct.

I do plan to include your version of the Civolopedia in version 1.6.

I know there have been discussion on why "Rocoteh does not include
a complete Civilopedia" before.
I can only say that if the Civilopedia had been very important
I and Sarevok would still be working on TGW. We would not had produced
Barbarossa. I would not have had the time to produce WW2-Global.

The above and this I say to all and not just clearbeard:

Please understand:
This is no-profit work. You can not expect that such scenarios in
all aspects should have the standards Firaxis-scenarios deliver.

Its 80-90% chance I will withdraw from scenario-creation in September.
Should I really continue after the release of CIV 4 its possible I
will focus on one CIV 4 scenario only.

In such a case you will see the Civilopedia stuff also.

Rocoteh
 
Week 4:
Sam plays now for me. Casablanca is mine! Algier and Rabat fell, too. The very next turn Tunis will be mine. In the South Cape Town is captured. In the very next turn Africa will be mine. And then I have to retreat all my non garrison troops to Europe. I don´t trust Ivan...
In Asia Kunming is mine. I also just recognized that Hong Kong was razed. Ansi is mine as well as Lanchow. The Chinese commies are history. Hue is also mine.
In Europ Thessaloniki is taken.
In the Atlantic U 86 sinks its second Greek DD. U 82 becomes Elite by sinking CA USS Tuscaloosa.

PC: Nothing worth to be mentioned.

Adler
 
skanar said:
I have a quick general reference question: What are we supposed to be able to airlift?

Historically, almost nothing was airlifted, and the game generally follows this. Flak, however, can be airlifted in the game. (It is possible that other units can be airlifted as well; I haven't made tests. The only one I've noticed so far is...Flak).

A bug, perhaps? Or did Rocoteh intend to make some units airlift-able? Flak seems like a poor choice in that case, since those AA guns were usually BIG.

skanar,

Its a bug.

Thank you for reporting it.

Rocoteh
 
William Mitchel said:
Second report on Brit ver. 1.5, from (i believe) turns 36 thru 65.

The defensive strategy I outlined earlier (bomb roads in my own territory, set up fortresses in swamps and mountains that can not be attacked by armor, and build like hell) has worked very well.

I focused production on the Matilda II to create a defensive line, then built Spitfires until I could achieve air superiority, and then built Skua bombers (which seem to be very nasty). Land near cities was fully developed (except for railroads) and production was dwarfing the axis. Canada alone produced 2-3 aircraft per turn, which could fly to europe in 1-2 turns. (a Skua can deploy from newfoundland to Rhur in one jump.) India (second palace was in mandalay), South Africa, Ethiopia also became big producers. Brits have about 120 tanks, 40 spitfires, 30 skua, plus many militia, etc. Building at least 4 matilda's per turn world-wide, sometimes 6 or 7.

I decided to limit my aggression to just the axis. Once the line stabilized in burma (it was never really threatened), i landed tanks in france and built a fortress the next turn. repeated the process until i had a force to help shield the french. My strategy was to fight, or be attacked, only where i could win. gradually build up more units than them. French rebuilt, and actually took Paris (one turn) and Milan (held it).

Got into Paris. brought in more air. discovered that you can blow away axis air by bombing an area with many spitfires. the defense comes up until it is completely eliminated. spitfires win 3 out of 4 this way, and are back at full strength after 2 turns. takes axis longer to rebuild from scratch. once the air was eliminated, i could bomb a city and then attack with 2-3 dozen tanks. eventually the defenders are eliminated. was able to take paris, brussels, rurh and berlin within a span of 12 turns this way. The SAM battery is god-like, so i switched bombing to units outside of cities and improvements, within a few turns was able to destroy every improvement in northern germany. they were unable to move and produce - counter-attacks stopped. I stopped at this point - the writing was on the wall.

Conclusion: brits can definitely survive, and may be too powerful. i can see all three axis capital taken by around turn 100 (taking all cities would be longer, but forgone conclusion). problem before was that axis could get into india / africa too easily, and italian marines from ethiopia became troublesome very early. hate to say it but pendulum may have swung too far. milita was a good idea. they need it early on. matilda too - it provided a unit that could win on defense. but frankly, once developed. i had so many cities that i may have equaled all axis production. probably need to take some of those new cities back.

have you considered a version which starts in summer 1941 and has the russians locked in with the allies? brits could be given historical possessions.

i took a ton of notes. ask if you have questions.

William Mitchel,

Thank you for a very interesting report.

This report shows that Britain is much more powerful than I previous thought.
AA in cities will have reduced power in version 1.6.
I have had thoughts on a 1941 version, but there is not enough time
available.

Thank you and welcome back.

Rocoteh
 
Grizx said:
Rocoteh,

Hope your recovery is going well.

On South America – I feel very strongly that you should keep it in the game.

It would not hurt to make it more difficult to invade by putting in more garrison troops. This would delay US expansion. But I actually think the US needs at least Mexico, Venezuela, and Colombia to win.

Might reduce some of the resources in South America to make it a less valuable target, but then I would add some resources like cattle and wheat in the US mid-west and a gold or two in the Rockies to compensate.

Might make South American countries unable to produce any additional troops other than the garrison troops they start with. That way any declaration of war would be sort of pro-forma on their part, with nothing but trade consequences. I agree it is unrealistic to have Argentinian troops arrive to attack the Panama Canal.

Might make the jungles North and South of the Panama Canal impassable (landmark) which would force the US to invade South America by sea if it really wanted to. This is also pretty realistic since back then those jungles were still pretty impassable.

Human players can always adjust their own game by limiting the extent to which they invade South America.or not using mobilization.​


On US infantry and tanks. I have read the recent comments, but I think Version 1.5 has the US infantry and tanks about right.

I agree that the old US Marines were too powerful and new split into 1939 and 1942 Marines is good. But the US did have inferior armor, and to change that just to get the AI to build some is not, in my opinion, the way to go. Heck, when I play the US I don’t waste time on building early US armor. I wait for the Sherman. And that is basically what the US did in the actual war. (50,000 Shermans, 6000 M3 Grants and Lees, and an insignificant number of M2’s)

I think the US infantry needs to be good - and it was good both in the Pacific and in Europe. At least don’t take away both the blitz and the 2 moves. Early US armor was actually mostly incorporated with US infantry units and therefore the blitz and extra move actually fit in well. It was not until after the fall of Poland that the US even really started looking seriously at independent armored formations. Plus given that both the AI and human players don’t build early US armor, it works out accurately and well overall anyway.

A possibility would be to do as you did with the US Marines: make 1939 and 1942 verions of US infantry with the 1942 version having the blitz and extra move and the 1939 version having only the extra move (the US still had a relatively large number of vehicles compared to others).

The US should be a very powerful player. If you take away South America and the US infantry after already taking away the Marinesand possibly the Iowa blitz as some want, you could end up really nerfing the US and hurting the scenario.​

Grizx

Grizx,

Thank you.

South America will stay in the scenario. Its possible I will make
some changes to make it more uninteresting for US to invade though.

On US infantry and tanks: Notes have been taken.
I think your idea on a split is very good!

Thank you and welcome back.

Rocoteh
 
First of all, I do not know what amazes me more: this brilliant scenario, or
your continuous presence in this thread, replying to all suggestions, releasing
one update after the other! Great job!! :thumbsup:

Rocoteh said:
On anti-aircraft: In fact I have spend many hours with AA-experiments.
Its very hard to get the right balance.
There have been much critique against general CIV3 from many players,
who thinks AA is worthless.
My own experiments show that its very easy to create AA-stats that
are close to worthless.
I do not say the values in WW2-Global are perfect. More playtesting
are needed. BTW: If you stack units with AA, the optimal effect will
be from 3-4 stacked units.

Rocoteh
Have you ever published the results of your AA-experiments? I'm trying to
find some information on the basics of AA for a long time now, and besides
cracker's comments on air superiority in the FAQ I haven't found anything.
How did you come to the conclusion that 3-4 AA units should be stacked for
optimal effect? I would appreciate every information you can give me on this matter.
 
Week 5:
Batang and Lhasa are mine now. China is destroyed. Saigon is also mine eliminating the French in Asia. Nevertheless my campaign is in Asia closed. Only Kuala Lumpur and Singapore are still British. But there is no way to come to without transport.
Corsica is taken without resistance. Athens falls, too.
Africa: Tunis is no longer French as well as Port Elizabeth is no longer British. Only Berbera resists on the African continent.
In the Atlantic U 21 sinks CL USS Savannah.

PC turn: Nothing to report. Tirpitz is ready!

Adler
 
not having S America would be really weird; kind of like a large void. removing them wouldn't be too prudent imho. however, reducing the initiative for the US to pounce on them is probably the best option.

btw, i'm thrilled to be a part of a joint project w/ El Padrino de Todos Guiónes (the Godfather of all Scenarios) ;) it ought to be very cool.
 
Emperor of Great Britain, version 1.5 final report

March 17th, 1941:
The Great War has ended. Celebrations are particularly exuberant in Belfast and the rest of the Emerald Isle as this day of celebration takes on a new meaning: freedom from the misguided concept of "Facism". Far sooner than even our most optimistic generals anticipated the last city of the so-called Axis powers has fallen. Germany, Italy, Japan, Thailand, and Finland have all been conquered utterly, and their people are beginning to adapt to their new lives as subjects of the British Empire. Their leaders have been apprehended and are currently on trial for war crimes perpetrated during the early, dark days of the war. What more can be said? The surprise attacks on Poland and China have proven to be fatal mistakes, under estimating the will and might of the Empire. God Save the King, and Rule Britannia!


So some impressions at the end of my first game of this wonderful mod:

Britain most certainly is not unplayable. Their extensive holdings at the start of the scenario give them unmatched potential if only the first waves can be held off. In retrospect, I should have gone with a higher difficulty, but it was fun nonetheless. I don't think any of the AI's got even most of the 1940 techs, where I was starting in on the 1943 research when it didn't matter any more! The lack of the tech trading that so characterizes most Civ games really hampers the AI.

I got the feeling that there were way more units available than were really needed. I know that most of them are there for flavor and accuracy, but there really were only a small subset that I ever built:

-Matilda 2's as the best defense
-Lancaster bombers, ~100
-Spitfires, changing to P-38's and Typhoons near the end
-King George V BB's, about one every 7 weeks all game
-Lots of Infantry, mostly drafted early on
-Large amounts of heavy and mobile artillery, which dished out the vast majority of my damage, along with the bombers
-CA's and BB's from the beginning of the game stayed around and useful for coastal cities the whole time
-A few DDF's carrying infantry to help take the Japanese islands
-Lots and lots and lots of workers

Those filled basically every necessary niche, with the starting units filling some specialized roles (carriers). About the only thing missing were tanks, which I would have built when the better ones became available (early Brit tanks suck eggs), only everyone died too soon.

Re-evaluate lethal land bombardment. With the Lancasters and heavier artillery, almost every city fell by infantry walking in unopposed. That would force building more tanks and such, to take out the 1HP defenders. It's a tricky proposition, and hotly contested for as long as Civ3 has been out, but IMO lethal land bombardment should be used sparingly (not so sea bombardment... just about everyone should, and does, have that). It's as much a game balance issue as one of "realism".

Those are the main observations that I didn't make per se during the game. I wonder if the Democratic powers ultimately have an insurmountable economic advantage (from the AI's perspective, humans can always make it work) over the force labor, no trade bonus Fascists. I'm starting a German Sid game now, and I'm eager to see how the different government and more powerful units change my impressions of the game.

But for now, from all of the little Civeons in Great Britain: Great Game! :goodjob:
 
Week 6:
Malta bombed. A German security division there destroyed! I think that´s a bug. A US DD bombed and sunk in the Atlantic. U 21 sank USS Honolulu, a CL.
Berbera is mine. And this means: Africa is mine!!!

PC: Nothing to report.


Adler
 
Grizx said:
I am now playing a US SID game. Last turn I finished building the Intel Agency. This turn I had some extra cash and decided to plant spies. Was able to plant a spy in USSR and Japan, but my spy kept getting caught in Britain. I had the gold, so I kept trying. After about 8 or nine US attempts to plant a spy, Mr. Churchill must have gotten really annoyed becasue Britain declared war on the US in spite of the locked alliance.

Go figure.

Grizx

HA! I've always wanted to try to take Canada as the US. I might have to try that sometime :)
 
Rocoteh,

I made a post while you were gone regarding playtests and the level it is being played at. I would like to reiterate this point as I have seen some posts that seem to have impact on the direction that 1.6 is taking.

In regards to William Mitchells post I will bet top dollar he is playing off the save you posted. (emperor level)

William Mitchel,

Thank you for a very interesting report.

This report shows that Britain is much more powerful than I previous thought.
AA in cities will have reduced power in version 1.6.
I have had thoughts on a 1941 version, but there is not enough time
available.

Thank you and welcome back.

Rocoteh


I made a post when I started off your japan save regarding OTSU subs and how I beleived they were overpowered. I made this comment as a result of clearing out the majority of the US navy with only a few of them. I have since seen similar posts. However, upon quiting that game and starting a more difficult level (diety) I found the OTSU's barely adequate for dealing with the numerous DDF's.

I haven't been around this thread to know your stance but I hope you take the level at which people play into consideration. Maybe your "mean" level is emperor and you balance off that. Personally I think one up from Emperor would be a better mean. I quit my emperor japan game mid 1940 as I realized I would win. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Japan was/is to powerfull. And just to clarify, OTSU subs on emperor are a little to good in my opinion, however, on diety they are just about ok id say.

would like to hear your thoughts regarding this.

JB
 
Perhaps we should at first define a certain level in which we give here play tests for the next version? Otherwise the chaos seems to be too big. The Otsu discussion is only one aspect.

Adler
 
Perhaps we should at first define a certain level in which we give here play tests for the next version? Otherwise the chaos seems to be too big. The Otsu discussion is only one aspect.

Adler

thats a good point. I only used the OTSU as an example; but I believe the "idea" is applicable to every civ and a good chunk of the units. I have only played Japan so I dont know the others.
 
Back
Top Bottom