WW2-Global

[allin1joe]

The non-US Marine unit.

Rocoteh

Should be interesting to see how Japan reacts to this since the Marine is really the only viable land fighting force they have.

I plan on downloading this tonight (providing I start doing my work and stop browsing message boards ) and starting a game. Not sure which power or difficulty I will be trying this time.

 

[oljb007]

what were they before? So all marines except US marines now cost 800 shields.

thats interesting. doesnt impact my strat I was using air bombard and the occasional marine, now I just dont use any marines. However, this seems very bad for the japan AI. I mean a YamatoC is only 960!

 

[Rocoteh]

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

Grizx,

I think the changes that have been implemented in version 1.7
will solve the problems with South America. If not there will be more
changes in future versions.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

Should be interesting to see how Japan reacts to this since the Marine is really the only viable land fighting force they have.

I plan on downloading this tonight (providing I start doing my work and stop browsing message boards ) and starting a game. Not sure which power or difficulty I will be trying this time.

allin1joe,

Clarification: The Japanese SNLF unit is unchanged.
The 800 shield cost only refers to the unit called Marine.

Welcome back with more comments on the new version.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

what were they before? So all marines except US marines now cost 800 shields.

thats interesting. doesnt impact my strat I was using air bombard and the occasional marine, now I just dont use any marines. However, this seems very bad for the japan AI. I mean a YamatoC is only 960!

oljb007,

Cost increased fom 650 shields to 800 shields.

This only refers to the unit called Marine.
Its available to: China, France, Germany, Great Britain,
Italy and Soviet.

BTW: Mexico is now also playable. Anyone who likes "mission impossible"
should play Mexico!

Rocoteh

 

[Sasebo]

Mexico??? VIVA AXIS! I don't think I am quite up to that one just yet; I am going to try a little USSR first because I want to actually see if I can do well on a game at Sid level. Note, for regular play Emperor is a struggle for me! It is just that I find with scenarios where you are already past the expansion phase at the start are easier to play at higher levels then if you started from the very beginning like a 'standard' game. Sid would obliterate me in a standard game. I want to say that so far as I am concerned the Emperor level saves are just fine. That way if you want to play higher all you have to do is initialize the game instead of using the save positions.

Adler: I don't want to prolong or stir up your debate with Vingrjoe anymore either, but from what I've read about that battle between Hood+Prince of Wales vs. Bismarck they were not the ideal benchmarks to use. Hood was too old and Prince of Wales did not even have all of her paint dry. Bismarck was new too but I think she was in better shape then either of those two. Just my two cents. So far as the numbers go I am clueless. Does heavier weight shells mean anything? Do they penetrate more or something?

Rocoteh: I am glad it is just the .biq file! I look forward to trying this version out, I am thinking the DDFs should not be a problem now with those stats, a good Light Cruiser could be able to defeat them one on one now. Did you ever think this scenario would hit version 1.7?

 

[Rocoteh]

Rocoteh: I am glad it is just the .biq file! I look forward to trying this version out, I am thinking the DDFs should not be a problem now with those stats, a good Light Cruiser could be able to defeat them one on one now. Did you ever think this scenario would hit version 1.7?

Sasebo,

Yes, I think the DDF:s should work well now.

No, I did not think it should hit 1.7. In fact I did announce last fall that
the whole project had been cancelled. It was really cancelled for
5-6 weeks. This coincided with frustration over some reactions on
Barbarossa. Both Sarevok and I consider it as very good scenario.
At this time we both thought that some people really liked to excel
in finding weak spots and problems with the scenario.

During one of these days though I loaded WW2-Global and started
to think of all the time that have been invested in it. Its much more
time than I for example invested in the ACW-scenario.

Then I decided that the project should be completed no matter
how much more time that were needed.

About 3 months after the release I think its positive that
interest for WW2-Global still is very high.

Rocoteh

 

[oljb007]

Oh Hell Ya!

 

[Adler17]

Okay, I admit the Bismarck had a thinner armour. Also the range was inferior. Also the US RADAR was better. Nevertheless a fight between these giants would have taken place mostly in a distance of under 18.000 yards. This was the battle range. And seldomly a hit was achieved on a greater distance. And no hit was achieved on a distance further than 26.500 yards (Scharnhorst hit on Glorious). So we have to take this battle distance. On this distance the advantage of RADAR was set to a minimum due to the excellent German optics, which were very precisely. For instance: German rangefinder had an error of 2.6 m on 20000 m. US ships had an error of 9.7 m! Source: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-078.htm I doubt that RADAR could give such a boost here. Also the fights against the Japanese navy are difficulty to compare with fights against German ships. German ships mostly fought at day in the Atlantic with better rangefinders than the Japanese.
And although Bismarck might have fired a lower quantaty of explosives she could fire 24 15" shells per minute, meaning she could hit the enemy more often at different positions (18 16" shells). Although I admit Hood and PoW are bad examples, Hood were hit with the 2nd and 3rd salvo destroying her. Then Bismarck fired on PoW and hit her in a few minutes 8 times damaging the ship severely (the ship was not ready either). This shows at least the ability to hit the enemy hard and fast.
To the armour: Yes it was thinner. And also Nathan Okgun says the qulity was the same. But how can you explain that Bismarck was only hit once which pernetrated the armour belt, although thousands of shells were fired from all distances on her, even on clostest range? How can Scharnhorst only being sunk after 8 heavy artillery hits but also 13 (!) torpedo hits? So these German ships could get an enormous ammount of damage and were still afloat. So the German armour can´t be that bad.
I still say it would be a tough fight, Iowa vs. Bismarck, but still for both ships. None of them had a light run.
This is all I have to say to that off topic. What´s your opinion, Rocoteh?

Adler

 

[vingrjoe]

This is an excerpt from the webpage you give the link to. No where does it say the German rangefinder had only a 2.6 m error. The 2.6 m error being referred to is finding an error with a 3m long rangefinder as an example.

"Prior to World War I, it was known that the human eye can measure angles to a minimum error of 10 angular seconds. This is the smallest angle that one can recognize between an object and a certain measuring mark by using special instruments. The effect of this minimum eye-error in terms of measuring distance with a range finder can be calculated with respect to the base-length of the rangefinder. For a rangefinder with a base length of 3 m and a twenty-fifth fold magnification, at 20 hm the error would be +/- 2.6 m, at 100 hm the error would be 65 m and at 160 hm it would be 165 m. This error is linear, that is, if you double the base-length of the rangefinder, then the fault distance is reduced by half."

Regardless, I'd like to use this quote from the combined fleet website. You know, the guy that used Nathan Okun's data to determine the best of the battleships.

"GENERAL COMMENTS: The bottom line is that, after 1943 or so, having the world's best optical fire-control systems was largely irrelevant. The night battle between Washington and Kirishima near Savo pretty much settled the point; good radar usually beats good optics in a stand-up fight. And the radar used by Washington off of Guadalcanal was not as good as the sets fitted aboard Iowa."

http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_fire.htm


Bottom line, the Bizmarck and Tirpitz are now nothing but shot up, rusting hulks on the ocean floor. Let it go.

 

[Adler17]

vingrjoe, I think we should agree to disagree and stop the discussion.

Adler

 

[vingrjoe]

For once, I agree with you.

 

[Adler17]

I want to start a new game. Which level should I take to make a compareable playtest?

Adler

 

[Rocoteh]

I want to start a new game. Which level should I take to make a compareable playtest?

Adler

Adler,

Since most of the saved games are at Emperor-level, I think that
is a good level to choose.

I welcome playtest-reports on all levels though.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

I still say it would be a tough fight, Iowa vs. Bismarck, but still for both ships. None of them had a light run.
This is all I have to say to that off topic. What´s your opinion, Rocoteh?

Adler

Adler,

Since an Iowa-class ship never met an Bismarck-class ship it will
for always be estimates. In cases like this there can never exist an
objective "truth" in my opinion.

There is nothing wrong to speculate in which battleship-class was
the best, but when it comes to battleships I think its more interesting
to reflect whether the "general thruth" about them is correct or not.

The "general truth" that you often meets in media means that battleships:
"was obsolete already when WW2 started and overall it was a
weapon-system that failed."

The above is not true in my opinion!
When ideas as the one above become "general truth" I think its
interesting to ask: What was the reason?

Rocoteh

Also: Saved games for Germany, Soviet and Britain now available at Post 3.

 

[LBPB]

Finaly the DDay on California has begun !

Japanese playtest, week 11 1945

Following our complete victory over the US pacific fleet east of Hawaii, the huge Japanese fleet (178 ships in this operation) sailed to California.

Note1 : This hight number of ships only represent half of the Imperial Japanese Navy (but the powerfulest one). The other half is dispatched to protect Japan, Indonesia, Austrila, New Zealand, the Pacific Ocean (north & center) and Indian Ocean (to Madagascar)...
Note2 : Intelligence reports say that a fairly large part of the US Atlantic fleet remain operational and is returning from Europe to the US and heading for the Panama canal...

Since the Americans are aware of a coming landing, they are preparing to receive us well, long range B17 bombers are bombing our fleet since our departure from Hawaii 4 weeks ago. Our Zero and our AA guns are painfully keeping them from hunting us down...

By the end of week 11, our fleet is on view of the coast, while our task force is dividing in two landing force (one going to San Diego and the other to Los Angeles beachs), our powerful Air force based over our Carriers take off to destroy the Radars and the rails and road networsk of the south California in order to isolating both cities from the rest of the continent...

 

[Adler17]

The reason is most likely Pearl Harbour! There the US battlefleet was destroyed or put out of long action. The carrier had to do the job now. The plane became the most used weapon in the Pacific and partly also in the Atlantic. However BBs had to cover the CVs. Otherwise it would have been a real danger for the carrier if they were surprised by surface ships. See some battles in the Pacific or as the first battle of this kind the sinking of the HMS Glorious.
Nevertheless today only 2 Iowa class BB are still in reserve- and nearly all navies complain about the lack of a ship for shore bombardments. The BBs are not obsolete but nobody wants to spend million in one ship. The only ones who could have massive budget problems: UK, US, France, Germany and to a much lesser extent also Japan, but there are many internal problems concerning maritime forces in the latter. So these states are planning to go another way and to equip destroyer or frigates with heavier guns. The US are planning to build a new destroyer with a new 6.1" gun (155mm). The new German frigate Hamburg is equipped with a 6.1" PzH 2000 tank howitzer instead of a 3" OTO Melera gun. Also the new F 125 class, which shall replace the F 122 Bremen class shall have shore bombardment ability. I think the way to a battleship is not so near but also not too far away. Perhaps once again BBs like the Iowa, Yamato or Bismarck will rule the sea- with new developed rail guns or with classical guns is not sure.

Adler

 

[Rocoteh]

Credits for version 1.7 of WW2-Global.

These individuals have made version 1.7 a better version with
playtest-reports, comments and ideas:

Adler17, allin1joe,andis-1,Bob1475,clearbeard,Cowabunga

Dr Nick,Drivebymaster,Grizx,

KristiB, LBPB, mircea74,oljb007,Overlag, psweetman1590,

P.S.Y.C.H.O.,skanar, Sasebo,Tantor,vlad1917_a,William Mitchel.

Credits for unit-graphics all versions:
ripptide, vingrjoe , W.I.N.T.E.R and Wyrmshadow.

March 29 2005

Rocoteh

These credits can also be seen at Post 10.

 

[Rocoteh]

LBPB,

Thank you for the report. I am really looking forward to follow
how this titanic struggle turns out!

I guess the counterattack from AI will be massive.

Welcome back.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

The reason is most likely Pearl Harbour! There the US battlefleet was destroyed or put out of long action. The carrier had to do the job now. The plane became the most used weapon in the Pacific and partly also in the Atlantic. However BBs had to cover the CVs. Otherwise it would have been a real danger for the carrier if they were surprised by surface ships. See some battles in the Pacific or as the first battle of this kind the sinking of the HMS Glorious.
Nevertheless today only 2 Iowa class BB are still in reserve- and nearly all navies complain about the lack of a ship for shore bombardments. The BBs are not obsolete but nobody wants to spend million in one ship. The only ones who could have massive budget problems: UK, US, France, Germany and to a much lesser extent also Japan, but there are many internal problems concerning maritime forces in the latter. So these states are planning to go another way and to equip destroyer or frigates with heavier guns. The US are planning to build a new destroyer with a new 6.1" gun (155mm). The new German frigate Hamburg is equipped with a 6.1" PzH 2000 tank howitzer instead of a 3" OTO Melera gun. Also the new F 125 class, which shall replace the F 122 Bremen class shall have shore bombardment ability. I think the way to a battleship is not so near but also not too far away. Perhaps once again BBs like the Iowa, Yamato or Bismarck will rule the sea- with new developed rail guns or with classical guns is not sure.

Adler

Adler,

Yes, Pearl Harbour is probably one important reason.

With regard to the new WW3-Global scenario I and El Justo are
working with, the return of the Battleship could be an interesting feature.

Rocoteh