WW2-Global
- Thread starter Rocoteh
- Start date
Overlag said:good old software firewalls........
Yes, I agree
However the ADSL-connection worked when I restarted the
computer and here are the new stats for Cruisers in version 1.6:
(Shields, Attack, Defense, Move, HP,AA)
Light Cruiser: 160, 20, 16, 7, +1, 2.
Light Cruiser 2: 180, 23, 18, 8, +2, 3.
Heavy Cruiser: 320, 30, 21, 6, +2, 2.
Heavy Cruiser 2: 320, 35, 24, 7, +3, 3.
AA Cruiser: 180, 11, 13, 7, 0, 4.
Britains starts with 49 Light Cruisers. These have been splitted
into 10 different classes.
Rocoteh
Grizx said:
All US cities were connected by good roads at that time?
Grizx said:
That´s no entirely correct. Brazil sent a group of pilots to fight in Europe, no meaning they declared war, but, they helped.
Argentina declared war on the Axis when the war almost finished, by 1945.
However, Argentina had a pro-nazi government and german embassy there had the plans Hitler did for South America invasion, scheduled for 1950, so Germany was interested in South America. His idea was to divide South America into 4 countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile and New Spain.
Regarding units in South America, I think it´s not a good idea to leave them just garrison units. It would make it more interesting if they could build some kind of weak unit, and have the chance to be on any of both sides in the war. A human player could develop a campaign in South America, choosing to be one of the Allies or part of the Axis. This wouldn´t be historically accurate, but the human player can decide to change history in the game.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Me 262 had a range of 1050 km! Source: http://infos.aus-germanien.de/Messerschmitt_Me_262 That is much more than the Me 109 had (~500 km). So I would also say they should get a range of at least 6!
Also Bismarck had the guns with the most damage delivery of all capital ships. Its 8 guns were able to fire three times a minute, delivering more kg grenades to the enemy than all other ships, Iowa and Yamato included. Also the German armour was the best of the world, so armour construction and armour quality were sufficient to be used in thinner quantity than on other ships of the type. Remember Bismarck´s final battle: The British Admiral, Tovey IIRC, said it would be more efficient to throw Binoculars on the Bismarck than to fire with the guns on her. Indeed only 1 shell penetrated the armour belt. 1 of over 1000 shells fired on her!
Adler
Also Bismarck had the guns with the most damage delivery of all capital ships. Its 8 guns were able to fire three times a minute, delivering more kg grenades to the enemy than all other ships, Iowa and Yamato included. Also the German armour was the best of the world, so armour construction and armour quality were sufficient to be used in thinner quantity than on other ships of the type. Remember Bismarck´s final battle: The British Admiral, Tovey IIRC, said it would be more efficient to throw Binoculars on the Bismarck than to fire with the guns on her. Indeed only 1 shell penetrated the armour belt. 1 of over 1000 shells fired on her!
Adler
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Edition to Mircea:
Concerning Bismarck stats read previous post. I think the Bismarck stats are okay now. Also I think Uboats should get 5 and type XXI 6. I know it is not very historical, but much more practicable since the lack of a proper naval combat system.
To fighter bombers: FW 190 and Me 262, and to a lesse extent also Me 109 were extensively used as fighter bombers. Especially FW 190 was an outstanding battle plane with a wide range of weapons: bombs up to 1800 kg, rockets, missiles, 1 torpedo,... So it should get a relative high bombard value.
Graf Zeppelin CV: 40 planes: 24 Me 109 and 16 Ju 87= 4 planes in the game.
IS2 tank: This Russian tank was very tough and had a good gun able to cope with a Tiger but was very small for the crew leading to rapid exhaustion. So I would give this unit stats equal to the Panther. This is also historically okay since there were not so many produced IIRC.
Littorio class BB sucked indeed! They were able to fire only 1.3 shots a minute and of a lower quantity of damage delivered. http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/Features/BuildBetter.htm
Adler
Concerning Bismarck stats read previous post. I think the Bismarck stats are okay now. Also I think Uboats should get 5 and type XXI 6. I know it is not very historical, but much more practicable since the lack of a proper naval combat system.
To fighter bombers: FW 190 and Me 262, and to a lesse extent also Me 109 were extensively used as fighter bombers. Especially FW 190 was an outstanding battle plane with a wide range of weapons: bombs up to 1800 kg, rockets, missiles, 1 torpedo,... So it should get a relative high bombard value.
Graf Zeppelin CV: 40 planes: 24 Me 109 and 16 Ju 87= 4 planes in the game.
IS2 tank: This Russian tank was very tough and had a good gun able to cope with a Tiger but was very small for the crew leading to rapid exhaustion. So I would give this unit stats equal to the Panther. This is also historically okay since there were not so many produced IIRC.
Littorio class BB sucked indeed! They were able to fire only 1.3 shots a minute and of a lower quantity of damage delivered. http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/Features/BuildBetter.htm
Adler
Cowabunga
Chieftain
skanar,
Thank you for your comments.
On levels: It would be interesting to make a poll on this matter,
but I do not think its possible.
Welcome back.
Rocoteh
Rocoteh,
I remember there was a poll taken about playing levels in Civ III on this very web site. The largest percentage of players played at the Emporer level and the one below it. Very few people, relatively speaking, played at the Sid level, although in the forums, the players who play at that level seem to the most active. As a result, many scenarios get skewed towards the Sid level and are not as fun to play by the overwhelming majority of the players out there.
Since this is your scenario, I would recommend that you implement what your gut tells you to. It seems to be very difficult to please both the very active players and the majority of the players at the same time.
Maybe you could freeze version 1.5 for Emporer level and below, and make version 1.6 for SID and Deity levels.
Either way, it's still a great scenario.
Very respectfully,
Cowabunga
Thank you for your comments.
On levels: It would be interesting to make a poll on this matter,
but I do not think its possible.
Welcome back.
Rocoteh
Rocoteh,
I remember there was a poll taken about playing levels in Civ III on this very web site. The largest percentage of players played at the Emporer level and the one below it. Very few people, relatively speaking, played at the Sid level, although in the forums, the players who play at that level seem to the most active. As a result, many scenarios get skewed towards the Sid level and are not as fun to play by the overwhelming majority of the players out there.
Since this is your scenario, I would recommend that you implement what your gut tells you to. It seems to be very difficult to please both the very active players and the majority of the players at the same time.
Maybe you could freeze version 1.5 for Emporer level and below, and make version 1.6 for SID and Deity levels.
Either way, it's still a great scenario.
Very respectfully,
Cowabunga
oljb007
Warlord
@Cowabunga
This topic was discussed earlier and one of the comments that was made and I agree with is that I play normal ol' Civ3 on Emperor, so I naturally started this scenario on emperor. Unfortuneately I quickly realized it was way to easy. So now I play it on Diety now. Just something to think about!
Rocoteh,
I read through your list of changes regarding 1.6. Is there anything on the slate for Japan? just a recap of things I have brought up:
B5N Kate (bomber) is the starting plane which is superior to the next 2-3 planes that come with tech advances. This is a tad tricky as the Japanesse need to grow rapidly as they did. maybe some "special Duval's" that you cant build as starting units or something.
Tech structure for Japan--First 6-8 techs only yield 3 usable units (yamatoC, Otsu and the Zero[super carrier is of questionable-shakiro?]) All of the Air techs render "obsolete" units
SNLF could be broken into groups maybe, for some flavor. 1939 (Attack 18) and a 40 (attack 20) as Japan gets "NO" new ground units. There could even be a 1942 (attack of 24) I dont know...just some thoughts.
In regards to "in house rules" and Japan I think Japan should not be able or build infantry based units or "draft" from cities other than its starting cities. This would simulate the personell issue as this resource is very limited for Japan. China quickly turns into a manufacturing base for Japan which is fine for building tanks, planes and boats but not infantry; I doubt they could get the chinese to fight for them in six months time!
Rocotech, is there a way to set this in the game or is house rule the best way? This could apply to all CIVS actually now that I think about it.
just some thoughts.
This topic was discussed earlier and one of the comments that was made and I agree with is that I play normal ol' Civ3 on Emperor, so I naturally started this scenario on emperor. Unfortuneately I quickly realized it was way to easy. So now I play it on Diety now. Just something to think about!
Rocoteh,
I read through your list of changes regarding 1.6. Is there anything on the slate for Japan? just a recap of things I have brought up:
B5N Kate (bomber) is the starting plane which is superior to the next 2-3 planes that come with tech advances. This is a tad tricky as the Japanesse need to grow rapidly as they did. maybe some "special Duval's" that you cant build as starting units or something.
Tech structure for Japan--First 6-8 techs only yield 3 usable units (yamatoC, Otsu and the Zero[super carrier is of questionable-shakiro?]) All of the Air techs render "obsolete" units
SNLF could be broken into groups maybe, for some flavor. 1939 (Attack 18) and a 40 (attack 20) as Japan gets "NO" new ground units. There could even be a 1942 (attack of 24) I dont know...just some thoughts.
In regards to "in house rules" and Japan I think Japan should not be able or build infantry based units or "draft" from cities other than its starting cities. This would simulate the personell issue as this resource is very limited for Japan. China quickly turns into a manufacturing base for Japan which is fine for building tanks, planes and boats but not infantry; I doubt they could get the chinese to fight for them in six months time!
Rocotech, is there a way to set this in the game or is house rule the best way? This could apply to all CIVS actually now that I think about it.
just some thoughts.
vingrjoe
Landlocked Shipwright
"Also Bismarck had the guns with the most damage delivery of all capital ships. Its 8 guns were able to fire three times a minute, delivering more kg grenades to the enemy than all other ships, Iowa and Yamato included."
Adler, I remember this debate in an old post.
Again, lets look at historical technical data:
Bismark- 8 15 inch guns, firing rate:3 rounds/min, shell weight: 1764lbs
3 rounds/min x 8 guns =24 x 1764= 42,336 lbs of ordinance
Iowa- 9 16 inch guns, firing rate:2 rounds/min, shell weight 2700 lbs
2 rounds/min x 9 guns= 18 x 2700 = 48,600 lbs of ordinance
Yamato- 9 18.1 inch guns, firing rate:2 rounds/min, shell weight 3219 lbs
2 rounds/min x 9 guns =18 x 3219= 57942 lbs of ordinance
And again, the Bismark DID NOT have the radar directed fire capability the Iowas or even the South Dakotas had. The Bismarck had great optics, but you can't see thru fog or smoke or at night very well.
Don't even get me started on the armor. Adler, do your research more thoroughly. The webpage link you have, points out that only the Bismarck's ROF is superior. When you calculate the actual projectile weight, she's on the bottom of the Big 3. That same webpage which supposedly boasts about the Bismarck's guns also shows that contrary to your statement, the Bismarck's armor didn't match up to the Yamato's, Iowa's or even South Dakota's armor.
You keep referring to the sinking of the Bismark, about only one shell penetrating her belt. Yet, you don't include the fact that the British battleships were firing at extremely close range, too close to have plunging fire to hit the armor belt, but instead, tearing up the topside.
Since one of the nice things about this game is the editor, you or anyone can change any unit's stats to anything they want. Whether historically accurate or not.
In order to prevent flooding of this thread with this certain topic, I remind you to just go back to the Bismark Unit thread by TVA22. It was in that thread where this debate first came up. If we continue in this thread, it will just be a repeat of what was posted earlier.
Adler, I remember this debate in an old post.
Again, lets look at historical technical data:
Bismark- 8 15 inch guns, firing rate:3 rounds/min, shell weight: 1764lbs
3 rounds/min x 8 guns =24 x 1764= 42,336 lbs of ordinance
Iowa- 9 16 inch guns, firing rate:2 rounds/min, shell weight 2700 lbs
2 rounds/min x 9 guns= 18 x 2700 = 48,600 lbs of ordinance
Yamato- 9 18.1 inch guns, firing rate:2 rounds/min, shell weight 3219 lbs
2 rounds/min x 9 guns =18 x 3219= 57942 lbs of ordinance
And again, the Bismark DID NOT have the radar directed fire capability the Iowas or even the South Dakotas had. The Bismarck had great optics, but you can't see thru fog or smoke or at night very well.
Don't even get me started on the armor. Adler, do your research more thoroughly. The webpage link you have, points out that only the Bismarck's ROF is superior. When you calculate the actual projectile weight, she's on the bottom of the Big 3. That same webpage which supposedly boasts about the Bismarck's guns also shows that contrary to your statement, the Bismarck's armor didn't match up to the Yamato's, Iowa's or even South Dakota's armor.
You keep referring to the sinking of the Bismark, about only one shell penetrating her belt. Yet, you don't include the fact that the British battleships were firing at extremely close range, too close to have plunging fire to hit the armor belt, but instead, tearing up the topside.
Since one of the nice things about this game is the editor, you or anyone can change any unit's stats to anything they want. Whether historically accurate or not.
In order to prevent flooding of this thread with this certain topic, I remind you to just go back to the Bismark Unit thread by TVA22. It was in that thread where this debate first came up. If we continue in this thread, it will just be a repeat of what was posted earlier.
Cowabunga said:
Cowabunga,
Thank you for your comment.
Most of the saves will still be at Emperor-level.
When I work with new ways to improve the scenario I do not
have a specific level in mind.
Its possible I will make a special AI-version later this year
for those who thinks its to easy to win even on the SID-level.
Best Regards
Rocoteh
oljb007 said:@Cowabunga
This topic was discussed earlier and one of the comments that was made and I agree with is that I play normal ol' Civ3 on Emperor, so I naturally started this scenario on emperor. Unfortuneately I quickly realized it was way to easy. So now I play it on Diety now. Just something to think about!
Rocoteh,
I read through your list of changes regarding 1.6. Is there anything on the slate for Japan? just a recap of things I have brought up:
B5N Kate (bomber) is the starting plane which is superior to the next 2-3 planes that come with tech advances. This is a tad tricky as the Japanesse need to grow rapidly as they did. maybe some "special Duval's" that you cant build as starting units or something.
Tech structure for Japan--First 6-8 techs only yield 3 usable units (yamatoC, Otsu and the Zero[super carrier is of questionable-shakiro?]) All of the Air techs render "obsolete" units
SNLF could be broken into groups maybe, for some flavor. 1939 (Attack 18) and a 40 (attack 20) as Japan gets "NO" new ground units. There could even be a 1942 (attack of 24) I dont know...just some thoughts.
In regards to "in house rules" and Japan I think Japan should not be able or build infantry based units or "draft" from cities other than its starting cities. This would simulate the personell issue as this resource is very limited for Japan. China quickly turns into a manufacturing base for Japan which is fine for building tanks, planes and boats but not infantry; I doubt they could get the chinese to fight for them in six months time!
Rocotech, is there a way to set this in the game or is house rule the best way? This could apply to all CIVS actually now that I think about it.
just some thoughts.
oljb007,
The above will have to wait until version 1.7, since I do not want to delay
the release of 1.6.
On Japan: I think a house rule is the best way.
Rocoteh
Version 1.7 have been released!
Credits and saved games will follow tomorrow.
Rocoteh
Link to download:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=107698
Credits and saved games will follow tomorrow.
Rocoteh
Link to download:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=107698
More changes in version 1.7:
P-51: Now HP +4.
A6M Zero: Now HP +3.
Marine: Now Shields 800.
Rocoteh
Link to download:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=107698
P-51: Now HP +4.
A6M Zero: Now HP +3.
Marine: Now Shields 800.
Rocoteh
Link to download:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=107698
oljb007
Warlord
who's marine?
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Vingrjoe, the British BB fired also on greater distance on her, not only on clostest range. Also at this range they should have been able to pernetrate the armour even better than on bigger distances. Also could you explain me the datas on the page I gave concerning the firepower of Bismarck and Iowa?
Additional to that RADAR was bad on German ships indeed. Nevertheless the German optics were much better than the others. Also German ships achieved without RADAR the hit on the longest distance. So RADAR would have played a role but not a crititcal. Also remember that Bismarck hit Hood with the second (IIRC) and third salvo without RADAR on a range of more than 18.000 yards.
Also German armour was the best in the world. All in all I admit it would have been a tough fight for the Bismarck but she was never without any chances.
Adler
Additional to that RADAR was bad on German ships indeed. Nevertheless the German optics were much better than the others. Also German ships achieved without RADAR the hit on the longest distance. So RADAR would have played a role but not a crititcal. Also remember that Bismarck hit Hood with the second (IIRC) and third salvo without RADAR on a range of more than 18.000 yards.
Also German armour was the best in the world. All in all I admit it would have been a tough fight for the Bismarck but she was never without any chances.
Adler
vingrjoe
Landlocked Shipwright
"Also German armour was the best in the world." Where have I heard you say that before...numerous times ?
I just finished reading some of Nathan Okuns writings, and you can take what he says to the bank, the guy has the credibility. He claims the Bismark's armor quality was equal to the best of the foreign (US ,British) armor qualities. So, it didn't have better armor quality than the US, but supposedly equal. But the Bismark's armor design (how and where the armor was used) is flawed. They didn't put the armor necessarily in the right places or in the right configuration.
What don't you understand about firepower of the Bismark versus Iowa. Iowa's shells are heavier. I did the math for you. If you don't believe me, look up the shell weights and rate of fire yourself. The Iowa threw more ordance than the Bismark despite Bismark's higher rate of fire.
Radar directed fire control makes a world of difference.
You continually refer to the Bismarck and Hood. That is not the same as comparing the Bismarck to the Iowa, South Dakota or Yamato. It's like apples and oranges. The Iowa's immunity zone is 16,400 yards, the Bismarcks is 29,000 yards. This means the Iowa could engage, and do serious damage to the Bismarck before the Bismarck could get within Iowa's immunity zone. Optics don't compare to radar directed fire at 25,000+ yards.
(BTW Iowa's max gun range is 42,345 yards compared to Bismarck's 38,880 yards.)
As I said, let's not flood this thread, with our disagreement. If after 2 years, (that's how old the original discussion is in TVA22's thread) you still can't or refuse to accept historical and technical data, then nothing, will convince you. In spite of 3-4 of us in that old thread having the same conclusions from technical and relevant historical FACTS, you are still apparently basing your opinion on subjective feelings, inconsequential facts, and chosen snippets of the story of the sinking of the Bismarck and not the whole story.
Adler17, I'd prefer not continue this discussuion past this point, because it will be a repeat of the same discussion 2 years ago.
Sorry for steering this thread somewhat off-course Rocoteh, I seem to have a bad habit for that lately.
I just finished reading some of Nathan Okuns writings, and you can take what he says to the bank, the guy has the credibility. He claims the Bismark's armor quality was equal to the best of the foreign (US ,British) armor qualities. So, it didn't have better armor quality than the US, but supposedly equal. But the Bismark's armor design (how and where the armor was used) is flawed. They didn't put the armor necessarily in the right places or in the right configuration.
What don't you understand about firepower of the Bismark versus Iowa. Iowa's shells are heavier. I did the math for you. If you don't believe me, look up the shell weights and rate of fire yourself. The Iowa threw more ordance than the Bismark despite Bismark's higher rate of fire.
Radar directed fire control makes a world of difference.
You continually refer to the Bismarck and Hood. That is not the same as comparing the Bismarck to the Iowa, South Dakota or Yamato. It's like apples and oranges. The Iowa's immunity zone is 16,400 yards, the Bismarcks is 29,000 yards. This means the Iowa could engage, and do serious damage to the Bismarck before the Bismarck could get within Iowa's immunity zone. Optics don't compare to radar directed fire at 25,000+ yards.
(BTW Iowa's max gun range is 42,345 yards compared to Bismarck's 38,880 yards.)
As I said, let's not flood this thread, with our disagreement. If after 2 years, (that's how old the original discussion is in TVA22's thread) you still can't or refuse to accept historical and technical data, then nothing, will convince you. In spite of 3-4 of us in that old thread having the same conclusions from technical and relevant historical FACTS, you are still apparently basing your opinion on subjective feelings, inconsequential facts, and chosen snippets of the story of the sinking of the Bismarck and not the whole story.
Adler17, I'd prefer not continue this discussuion past this point, because it will be a repeat of the same discussion 2 years ago.
Sorry for steering this thread somewhat off-course Rocoteh, I seem to have a bad habit for that lately.
Grizx said:
Grizx,
You only need to download the 1.7 biq-file (I had to remove 1.6 due
to a late detected bug.) I will send a PM to Thunderfall and ask him to
delete Ver 1.4 from the 134 MB download, since its not relevant.
Rocoteh
Link to download:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=107698
Rocoteh
Thanks very much for the info on the downloads.
Re: South America. You make a very good point about retaining the ability of South American countries to produce units other than garrisons. I agree by doing that you allow the axis powers and the USSR to enlist allies and cause trouble for the US and Britain in South America.
From some earlier posts there was discussion of eliminating South America all together and I thought that was a bad idea. So my suggestions were mostly aimed at finding some sort of compromise between an overly active South America which the US conquers quickly and not having any South America at all.
My other point was that although indiviual South American countries may have provided various contingents to the allies (my great uncle from Uruguay fought in the Brtish Naval Air Arm) - at a strategic military level, South American involvement was decidedly minor.
However, I still do think that having one or two impassable terrain squares South of Panama is the way to go.
Grizx
Thanks very much for the info on the downloads.
Re: South America. You make a very good point about retaining the ability of South American countries to produce units other than garrisons. I agree by doing that you allow the axis powers and the USSR to enlist allies and cause trouble for the US and Britain in South America.
From some earlier posts there was discussion of eliminating South America all together and I thought that was a bad idea. So my suggestions were mostly aimed at finding some sort of compromise between an overly active South America which the US conquers quickly and not having any South America at all.
My other point was that although indiviual South American countries may have provided various contingents to the allies (my great uncle from Uruguay fought in the Brtish Naval Air Arm) - at a strategic military level, South American involvement was decidedly minor.
However, I still do think that having one or two impassable terrain squares South of Panama is the way to go.
Grizx
Similar threads
- Sticky
