WW2-Global

[Baldurslayer]

Aloha,

Sasebo, how does playing Sid lvl change your tactics?
How big of a change was it from Diety to Sid?
Thank you in advance.

Drushba

 

[Rocoteh]

Sasebo,

Thank you for the report.


"Japan 2.2, Sid lvl, week 7, 1940

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have not had as much time as I would like to play lately. Have been getting in as much as I could, but Japan takes a long time every turn; so many fronts! Plus lots of patrols needed at sea."
Sasebo

Yes I guess playing Japan will take more time then most other Civs.

"Well, have managed to take the two coastal Chinese cities,and the first 2 cities of C.China as well. The axis are at war with the soviets! Very interesting how it happened too; Sweden declared war on the soviets around week 1, and right after that, in the same turn soviets declared war on the Finns! ....which dragged everyone in, of course. Germany appears to be holding on for now. Their Infantry and Flak 88 seem to still be increasing, but the PzIIIe are fluctuating."
Sasebo

The special AI version for human playing Japan will see a much
stronger Germany.

"Being at war with soviets just cuts all my resouces on the mainland off, and vice-versa; what a pain! I'm still building up the infrastructure though. The allied navies have been attacking with abandon, but it seems to have quieted down some. Lots of ships sunk on all sides. Yamato and Musashi are in the battle now. I've pulled back my navy to guard the home Islands/mainland, with a major group working on the Soviets and one down at Hong Kong. The UK has had as many as TWENTY! Infantry in that bloody city, the siege just goes on and on."
Sasebo

A very unexpected move from Britain-AI!

"Rocoteh, some suggestions:
Communist China needs some food bonus tiles. As it is, they just starve down to 1 and stay there. I'm sure that was not your intent, but when you went to the bigger map they just got crippled"
Sasebo

Thank you for reporting the problem.
I will check it.

"Considering what the U.S. marines have to face later in the game, as well as their composition and elite status as you mentioned, I don't think they need to be changed. Not up OR down."
Sasebo

Agree. I think their current stats are OK.

"I can understand why my China cities start out w/o any improvements, but weren't the Japanese in Manchuria for some time before this scenario begins? Korea as well, I think both those areas should have some improvements at the start, not necessarily all of them mind you."
Sasebo

I think you are right. There will probably be changes in version 2.3.

"I have actually come to like the Nagara class light cruisers Japan starts with, it would be nice to be able to build more of them. not sure why you had it set so you can't do it now."
Sasebo

It was part of a plan to give all major powers different classes of cruisers.
Its possible I will complete the plan in the future.

"About Adler's suggestions: Dora I think is useless, there just would not be enough of them to justify making a unit for that. Katyusha and nebelwerfers I already thought we had, aren't they the rocket artillery unit?"
Sasebo

Yes it is. It would be a splitting of that unit to add more flavour.

Thank you and welcome back.

Rocoteh

 

[Sasebo]

Baldurslayer: Not as much as you would think. They do produce units at a faster rate, and maybe research a bit faster too, but Sid isn't overly difficult. Where the higher difficulties are hard are in the regular game at the begining, where they have so many advantages and build up much quicker then you. In any scenario like this where you start with a lot of cities it just means you have to deal with a lot more enemy units overall. More pressure, but it's still the same fight. I think most people should be able to handle it. Now STARTING a regular game on Sid is pure death for me, at least so far.

 

[Baldurslayer]

Aloha,

Thank you Sasebo for sharing your experience!

Drushba

 

[Bob1475]

Rocoteh -

I eventually abandoned my US SID game in 1945. After my bombers got control of the air advances became easier but it was down to Soviet armor vs US bombers. Turns were taking forever and I had to keep LARGE numbers of units in every city near the front because the Soviets had over 500 tanks - no way to tell when they were coming. Key to my advance was destruction of road and railroads which slowed down the Soviets but also slowed down my advances. In any case it was truly interesting and exciting.

I have noted significant improvements in CIV4 scenarios. The recently released Battle for East Asia and WW1 scenarios (both mods) gave me a picture of what could be. I will still check in and try each new release that you provide.

 

[Baldurslayer]

Aloha,

In respect to another French tank or cav. unit what about the "Char 2C" (Char du Rupture), it was a monster in terms of size, guns and weight. On the other hand they were difficult to produce, thus a player can not build them on a grand scale early on.

Some info
http://www.answers.com/topic/char-2c

Probably difficult to find suitable graphics

Drushba

 

[Rocoteh]

Rocoteh -

I eventually abandoned my US SID game in 1945. After my bombers got control of the air advances became easier but it was down to Soviet armor vs US bombers. Turns were taking forever and I had to keep LARGE numbers of units in every city near the front because the Soviets had over 500 tanks - no way to tell when they were coming. Key to my advance was destruction of road and railroads which slowed down the Soviets but also slowed down my advances. In any case it was truly interesting and exciting.

I have noted significant improvements in CIV4 scenarios. The recently released Battle for East Asia and WW1 scenarios (both mods) gave me a picture of what could be. I will still check in and try each new release that you provide.

Bob1475,

An interesting playtest.

As mentioned earlier there will be a special AI-version this fall
for Human US versus Axis-AI.

On CIV 4 scenarios:

Yes with support from Firaxis it seems like there is a sharp increase
in interest for CIV 4 scenarios.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

Aloha,

In respect to another French tank or cav. unit what about the "Char 2C" (Char du Rupture), it was a monster in terms of size, guns and weight. On the other hand they were difficult to produce, thus a player can not build them on a grand scale early on.

Some info
http://www.answers.com/topic/char-2c

Probably difficult to find suitable graphics

Drushba

Drushba,

Thank you for the link.

This site looks interesting.

Rocoteh

 

[Akrasia]

I am trying to tinker with the Civ Editor but I am missing something. It will only allow me to open .bic files, but the scenario maps are .biq files. It has been a long time since I used the Editor. I'm sure this has come up in the forum before, but can anyone give me some direction. . .?

Thanks!

 

[Adler17]

Do you have the civ III Conquest Add on? If not you can't open it. Otherwise you have to open it with the conquest editor, which is installed where you have installed the conquest add on.

Adler

 

[Akrasia]

Ooopps--Stupid mistake on my part. I opened the wrong Civ Editor. Sorry for the tangent.

 

[Baldurslayer]

Aloha,

In one of the Air 1943 techs the German player researches three fighters: Fw 190G, He 219 and Me 410. Only the Fw 190G is worth building, combining everything one would want from such a unit.
It "might" be a good idea to change some of the stats in order to create an impetus to use all three units.

He 219 - long range (8) fighter with no recon or bombing ability and extremely low defensive values in order to simulate the purely defensive quality of a night fighter.
Me 410 - pretty much the same but with at least a range of 8 or even 10 and slightly higher bombing values
FW 190 G - lower bombing value and less range (6 or 7)

Just a suggestion

Drushba

 

[Adler17]

Baldurslayer, the problem with the FW 190 is that this plane was an outstanding fighter and bomber. It was fighter but also CAS plane, torpedo bomber and fighter bomber! These planes also fought with enemy planes in the classic fighter role as well as attacking ground or sea targets.
Also the He 219. This plane was the German equivalent of the Mosquito, at least from the design. It could be night fighter, fast bomber, reconnaissance plane and also torpedo bomber, although indeed only the night fighter version was built in higher production.
Also I suggest upgrading the Me 262 bombing abilities. IIRC it was in March 1945 when 55 Me 262 attacked British troops just crossing the German border near Kleve. 3 Me 262 were lost but the British had to retreat behind the border.

Adler

 

[Rocoteh]

Aloha,

In one of the Air 1943 techs the German player researches three fighters: Fw 190G, He 219 and Me 410. Only the Fw 190G is worth building, combining everything one would want from such a unit.
It "might" be a good idea to change some of the stats in order to create an impetus to use all three units.

He 219 - long range (8) fighter with no recon or bombing ability and extremely low defensive values in order to simulate the purely defensive quality of a night fighter.
Me 410 - pretty much the same but with at least a range of 8 or even 10 and slightly higher bombing values
FW 190 G - lower bombing value and less range (6 or 7)

Just a suggestion

Drushba

Drushba,

Notes have been taken.

I will have it mind with regard to version 2.3.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

Baldurslayer, the problem with the FW 190 is that this plane was an outstanding fighter and bomber. It was fighter but also CAS plane, torpedo bomber and fighter bomber! These planes also fought with enemy planes in the classic fighter role as well as attacking ground or sea targets.
Also the He 219. This plane was the German equivalent of the Mosquito, at least from the design. It could be night fighter, fast bomber, reconnaissance plane and also torpedo bomber, although indeed only the night fighter version was built in higher production.
Also I suggest upgrading the Me 262 bombing abilities. IIRC it was in March 1945 when 55 Me 262 attacked British troops just crossing the German border near Kleve. 3 Me 262 were lost but the British had to retreat behind the border.

Adler

Adler,

I will look over the stats for Me 262.

Before I release version 2.3 I intend to recheck a large number of
stats for air-units to see if any changes shall be done.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

I am going off-line soon and will be away for 2 weeks
without Internet-connection.

Rocoteh

 

[Baldurslayer]

Aloha,

Adler17, I totally agree on the great performance of the Fw 190 G in real life.
Yet in the game it is just way too strong. Since the He-219 and Me-410 are already in the game why not create some rationale to build them? Why include units that no-one is using (other than the flamethrower of course ) or that are redundant to begin with?

I just think of the !regular! bomb-load of a Fw 190G and the Me 410, they were the same and both had stuka abilities so why these greatly diverging bomb stats?

What it comes down to is that I fear too many "ueber-units" such as the Fw-190G and an upgraded Me 262 (as you propose) might reduce the "combined arms" approach thus reducing the number of different units people choose to produce.
Ok, the Me 210 was a failure yet the Me410's stats are in terms of range and bombing abilities far worse than the Me 110, the model it was supposed to replace.

Drushba

 

[Adler17]

Hmm, I think we have to rethink at first all air stats before continuing discussing it here.

Adler

 

[Baldurslayer]

Aloha,

I have a question relating to how to best defend against air attacks with ground units.

Part I:
The only ground units I have seen that have an air defence value is the regular Fortress, Flak, German 88 and the Arty HQ. Seems like not a whole lot and If you play as a non-German player you only have the Flak and the Fortress (which can not be build).
Only as a German you have some choice in this regard. The question I have revolves around the importance of experience in their effectiveness. The flak costs 150 AD=4 and the German 88 costs 450 AD=3. The 88 has a good chance to reach an elite status not so with the flak.
There is probably no simple answer since it is obvious that if one wants true AAA the flak is the way to go with 1/3 of the cost. So what is your ratio between # of German 88 and flak?

Part II:
How to defend one's navy without carrier based air cover? The DD destroyers have an AD=2 and cost only 50 yet the AAA cruiser have an AD=4 but cost 180. If one has a city with a production of 50 what would you build if the sole aim was to increase the air defence of a naval task force?

Thank you!

Drushba

 

[Rrakkiss]

I hate air defense, it never seems to be consistant, so I don't think it really matters a lot which route you take.

For the Navy side I prefer to go with AA cruisers and just keep the navy docked until I have 4 or more built to help protect a stack.

For city defense, as Germany I build 88s as much as I can for defense with aa being a bonus of them and a few flak for moving into new cities to help provide better air defense until I can get fighter coverage to it. Unless you are going to put 10 or more flak guns in a city, they aren't going to stop a big bombing run very well before ever improvement or the population is wiped out. Also, some of the later units like the SS panzer 1943 have aa defense which can help when attacking a city without air support.

The only way I've found to really stop bombing is with fighters, so I usually have 2 to 4 fighters per city and try to make sure multiple cities are covering each other so that there are nearer to 6 or 7 fighters covering each cities. For France coastal area I probably had like 10 fighters in Brussels to cover that area.