Yet another WW2 Pacific Mod
- Thread starter eric_A
- Start date
eric_A
Deity
I have added 4 new types:
Allied Dive Bomber
Allied Torpedo Bomber
Japanese Dive Bomber
Japanese Torpedo Bomber
For version 1 these will look like F4Fs for the allies
and Kamikazes for Japan, in version 2 the graphics will
be replaced by SDBs etc..
I have removed lethal sea bombard from the B17-type
bomber and the heavy bomber and given them precision
bombing instead.
The only air units with lethal sea bombard now are
dive bombers, torpedo bombers, fighter bombers
Kamikazies and ASW aircraft.
Allied Dive Bomber
Allied Torpedo Bomber
Japanese Dive Bomber
Japanese Torpedo Bomber
For version 1 these will look like F4Fs for the allies
and Kamikazes for Japan, in version 2 the graphics will
be replaced by SDBs etc..
I have removed lethal sea bombard from the B17-type
bomber and the heavy bomber and given them precision
bombing instead.
The only air units with lethal sea bombard now are
dive bombers, torpedo bombers, fighter bombers
Kamikazies and ASW aircraft.
Misfit_travel
Emperor
Eric_A:
It seems to be coming along quite nicely. Some scenario advice on unit types. Make sure each unit type you add has a distinctiveness and purpose to it. Adding Dive and Torpedo bombers is interesting (visually), but do they contribute meaningfully to the scenario? Keep in mind that this scenario, even with the mods you have made is still a pretty MACRO view of the Pacific front of WW2. The Firaxis version essentially had bombers (to bomb things) and fighters (to kill them). You are in effect adding a middle class of fighter bomber with precision bombing capability early in the scenario. This can be potentially game breaking and open to player abuse. (For example, what if I as the Japanese player built nothing but Dive bombers in order to selectively target US carriers? By mid '42 key unit types could be obliterated skewing the game play).
Will there be enough difference in cost, attack, defense etc. to make different aircraft types work?
You might want to post some tentative values / special abilities for all air units and ask for some feedback to balance them before you roll them out in v2.0. That way you can draw on player experience to see if it will work before committing them to a new build.
The point I'm trying to make is that adding specific unit types can have a ripple effect throughout the game. In my above example, you might have to tweak the AA defense of certain naval units to compensate.
Unit type / value discussions worked well in the ACW / ACWC3C groups and resulted in better unit construction.
Regards
Misfit
It seems to be coming along quite nicely. Some scenario advice on unit types. Make sure each unit type you add has a distinctiveness and purpose to it. Adding Dive and Torpedo bombers is interesting (visually), but do they contribute meaningfully to the scenario? Keep in mind that this scenario, even with the mods you have made is still a pretty MACRO view of the Pacific front of WW2. The Firaxis version essentially had bombers (to bomb things) and fighters (to kill them). You are in effect adding a middle class of fighter bomber with precision bombing capability early in the scenario. This can be potentially game breaking and open to player abuse. (For example, what if I as the Japanese player built nothing but Dive bombers in order to selectively target US carriers? By mid '42 key unit types could be obliterated skewing the game play).
Will there be enough difference in cost, attack, defense etc. to make different aircraft types work?
You might want to post some tentative values / special abilities for all air units and ask for some feedback to balance them before you roll them out in v2.0. That way you can draw on player experience to see if it will work before committing them to a new build.
The point I'm trying to make is that adding specific unit types can have a ripple effect throughout the game. In my above example, you might have to tweak the AA defense of certain naval units to compensate.
Unit type / value discussions worked well in the ACW / ACWC3C groups and resulted in better unit construction.
Regards
Misfit
eric_A
Deity
I think you misunderstand the concept of precision
bombing. It is strictly for attacking city improvements such
as factories, which is why I gave it to bombers and heavy
bombers. The dive/torpedo bombers do not have precision
bombing, they are ship killers and they got lethal sea
bombard. That way it makes more sense to put them on
carriers (at least to a human palyer, it will, not sure about
the AI).
What I really needed for the new air units was a stealth
bombard capability where you can pick a battleship or
carrier out of a stack and pummel just that unit, but the
game engine does not seem to allow it.
There are some differences in these units, they are more
expensive than fighters, but cheaper than the large bombers.
The dive bombers have better defence than the torpedo bombers
and the Japanese units have longer range but lower defence
than the Allied units. I have not posted the values because I am still tweaking things.
bombing. It is strictly for attacking city improvements such
as factories, which is why I gave it to bombers and heavy
bombers. The dive/torpedo bombers do not have precision
bombing, they are ship killers and they got lethal sea
bombard. That way it makes more sense to put them on
carriers (at least to a human palyer, it will, not sure about
the AI).
What I really needed for the new air units was a stealth
bombard capability where you can pick a battleship or
carrier out of a stack and pummel just that unit, but the
game engine does not seem to allow it.
There are some differences in these units, they are more
expensive than fighters, but cheaper than the large bombers.
The dive bombers have better defence than the torpedo bombers
and the Japanese units have longer range but lower defence
than the Allied units. I have not posted the values because I am still tweaking things.
Misfit_travel
Emperor
My understanding is that lethal bombard allows you to finish off that last HP of damage, thus sinking the ship.
In terms of what Eric_A is looking for, it might be worth experimenting with Stealth Attack assigned to certain aircraft types (rather than bombard). You would have to set the attack low enough that it would lose quite often against a full strength naval unit, but high enough that it had a good shot a killing off a weakened one. Thus you would require a combination of bombard followed by stealth attack to wipe out key naval units in stacks. The bombard would wear down the defenses of the naval group, while the stealth attack unit would finish off the most weakened units.
It might be worthwhile designating the torpedo bomber as the stealth attack unit type and leave the dive bomber as the bombard unit. Play testing would be needed to see if it was workable.
Misfit
In terms of what Eric_A is looking for, it might be worth experimenting with Stealth Attack assigned to certain aircraft types (rather than bombard). You would have to set the attack low enough that it would lose quite often against a full strength naval unit, but high enough that it had a good shot a killing off a weakened one. Thus you would require a combination of bombard followed by stealth attack to wipe out key naval units in stacks. The bombard would wear down the defenses of the naval group, while the stealth attack unit would finish off the most weakened units.
It might be worthwhile designating the torpedo bomber as the stealth attack unit type and leave the dive bomber as the bombard unit. Play testing would be needed to see if it was workable.
Misfit
eric_A
Deity
As far as I Know there are 2 kinds of stealth:
1. Stealth attack, which allows you to pick a target unit out of a
stack. This only works for attacks by mobile units. Since air
units are immobile they can only bombard, hence unabe to use
stealth attack. If we made them mobile, they would no longer
move around with the carriers.
2. The other stealth is what the stealth fighter has which
makes it immune to ground fire and interception.
If I am wrong on this someone please correct me.
Naval Movement
I am in the process of incorporating the idea which J. Lewis
posted on the ACW C3C thread. I have upped the movement
cost for coastal squares to 2. I will now increase the movement
for all ships slightly. Transports will be back to 6 per turn, which
works out to over 12 squares per month. This will mean we
can move quickly in the open seas but movement will slow
in the coastal areas around the islands, which is exactly what I
want to simulate the effect of shallow water with reefs, mines
and narrow channels at the harbour entrance.
I am thinking of introducing a PT boat squadron unit. This
would be a shallow water unit which ignores the extra
cost of the coastal squares.
1. Stealth attack, which allows you to pick a target unit out of a
stack. This only works for attacks by mobile units. Since air
units are immobile they can only bombard, hence unabe to use
stealth attack. If we made them mobile, they would no longer
move around with the carriers.
2. The other stealth is what the stealth fighter has which
makes it immune to ground fire and interception.
If I am wrong on this someone please correct me.
Naval Movement
I am in the process of incorporating the idea which J. Lewis
posted on the ACW C3C thread. I have upped the movement
cost for coastal squares to 2. I will now increase the movement
for all ships slightly. Transports will be back to 6 per turn, which
works out to over 12 squares per month. This will mean we
can move quickly in the open seas but movement will slow
in the coastal areas around the islands, which is exactly what I
want to simulate the effect of shallow water with reefs, mines
and narrow channels at the harbour entrance.
I am thinking of introducing a PT boat squadron unit. This
would be a shallow water unit which ignores the extra
cost of the coastal squares.
eric_A
Deity
I have posted the single player beta version at the beginning
of this thread, enjoy. Any comments will be appreciated.
of this thread, enjoy. Any comments will be appreciated.
eric_A
Deity
I fixed an error on the tech tree diagram in post #20.
Motorized transport was listed twice in the first column,
the lower one should have been counter-insurgency.
Motorized transport was listed twice in the first column,
the lower one should have been counter-insurgency.
eric_A
Deity
I have noticed that the AI will not move marines which start
on the island airfields, even though there is a transport sitting
on the coastal square next to them. It just cannot figure out
what to do with them so it just lets them sit there. It does
seem to know how to use paratroopers which start on airbases.
Maybe I should move the marines and the transports to cities
suuch as Truk and let them start from there on the single
player version.
on the island airfields, even though there is a transport sitting
on the coastal square next to them. It just cannot figure out
what to do with them so it just lets them sit there. It does
seem to know how to use paratroopers which start on airbases.
Maybe I should move the marines and the transports to cities
suuch as Truk and let them start from there on the single
player version.
eric_A
Deity
To download this version, goto post #1 of this thread.
This version adds some more food resorces in China
and Australia (a bit too much starvation).
Also incresed the time requied for worker jobs such as
road building and irrigation.
Victory points per population point was reduced to 1 while
VPs for VP locations was increased to 100. This was to
encourage the AI to go after the objectives.
The are now 2 .biq files for the single player, one if you
are playing Japan and one for allies. The problem was that
the AI would not use marines which started on island airbases.
So the marines from Saipan and Palau were all moved to
Truk for the Allies version
This version adds some more food resorces in China
and Australia (a bit too much starvation).
Also incresed the time requied for worker jobs such as
road building and irrigation.
Victory points per population point was reduced to 1 while
VPs for VP locations was increased to 100. This was to
encourage the AI to go after the objectives.
The are now 2 .biq files for the single player, one if you
are playing Japan and one for allies. The problem was that
the AI would not use marines which started on island airbases.
So the marines from Saipan and Palau were all moved to
Truk for the Allies version
eric_A
Deity
Here is the SDB dive bomber over Wake Island.
This is Wyrmshadows unit graphics.
Does anyone know where I can find Japanese
dive bombers and torpedo planes?
This is Wyrmshadows unit graphics.
Does anyone know where I can find Japanese
dive bombers and torpedo planes?
Misfit_travel
Emperor
eric_A said:
Have you considered starting the marines on the square at sea with the transport? (I don't know if you can do that or not, but its worth a try). If not, you're Truk idea will probably be the best.
Misfit
eric_A
Deity
Misfit:
The editor will not allow you to place land units at sea, even
if there is a transport on the tile.
The editor will not allow you to place land units at sea, even
if there is a transport on the tile.
eric_A
Deity
Wickes class DD for the basic destroyer, Fletchers
for the advanced destroyer and the Cve for the
light carrier. Once again I must thank Wrymshadow
for the excellent unit graphics.
for the advanced destroyer and the Cve for the
light carrier. Once again I must thank Wrymshadow
for the excellent unit graphics.
eric_A
Deity
Here we have some more new units with the PBY5 (sitting
on Midway Island) as the ASW aircraft. And for all you
McHale's Navy fans out there a PT Boat!!!
on Midway Island) as the ASW aircraft. And for all you
McHale's Navy fans out there a PT Boat!!!
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Apparently, the AI is unaware that units can simply walk into transports, and will only get stuff into them by loading them in a city.eric_A said:
(One could argue that the odd thing is that a human player can load a mechanized division into a transport without any dock facilities.)
I don't believe this is implementable; to be able to carry out a Stealth Attack on a ship it would need to be a Sea unit, and that's just wrong for aircraft, quite apart from that you couldn't then base them on carriers.Misfit said:
Lethal Sea Bombard isn't, BTW, that uber anymore, since AA factors on all warships cause significant attrition on aerial attackers with the right stats balance.
Just a warning : as the US in our latest PBEM scenario, my tactic was to build GI or Marines, and airlift them to newly conquered islands, after hurrying an ariport there, then a transport
It didn't worked very well because my fleet was severly damaged.
However, if you remove the airlift option (which is a good idea I think), you must make naval transport a lot easier.
Here is my suggestion : put coast with a cost of 3, sea with a cost of 2, and ocean with a cost of 1. Make all ocean tiles sea.
Now, create "Ocean lanes" between key element (exemple : one between USA and Hawaii).
Now, double the MP of naval units.
Result : the USA can choose to send troop FAST (twice as fast as in Pacific, even 4 time considering there is a turn every 15 days), but following dangerous sea lanes than can be ambushed by Japanese submarines. Or they can decide to avoid this dangerous lane, but then they will go much slower.
This should make the game a lot more fun for the USA.
It didn't worked very well because my fleet was severly damaged.
However, if you remove the airlift option (which is a good idea I think), you must make naval transport a lot easier.
Here is my suggestion : put coast with a cost of 3, sea with a cost of 2, and ocean with a cost of 1. Make all ocean tiles sea.
Now, create "Ocean lanes" between key element (exemple : one between USA and Hawaii).
Now, double the MP of naval units.
Result : the USA can choose to send troop FAST (twice as fast as in Pacific, even 4 time considering there is a turn every 15 days), but following dangerous sea lanes than can be ambushed by Japanese submarines. Or they can decide to avoid this dangerous lane, but then they will go much slower.
This should make the game a lot more fun for the USA.
eric_A
Deity
TLC:
By making armour and artillery wheeled types it will
restrict where they can be landed, at least. There is
quite a lot of jungle and swamps on the map.
In TOS a lot of the early units like the basic destroyer
and transports have no AA capability and so are sitting
ducks for planes if caught without air cover.
Steph:
My testing shows that the sea movement is about right
with coastal at 2 MP and sea/ocean at 1 and ship movement
slightly increased (destroyers move 8 now). I will wait and see
how it works in the upcoming PBEM test and make any adjustments
after that.
By making armour and artillery wheeled types it will
restrict where they can be landed, at least. There is
quite a lot of jungle and swamps on the map.
In TOS a lot of the early units like the basic destroyer
and transports have no AA capability and so are sitting
ducks for planes if caught without air cover.
Steph:
My testing shows that the sea movement is about right
with coastal at 2 MP and sea/ocean at 1 and ship movement
slightly increased (destroyers move 8 now). I will wait and see
how it works in the upcoming PBEM test and make any adjustments
after that.
Similar threads
