Empire of the Rising Sun Pre-Beta Released

[Patine]

I've released what I have so far on Empire of the Rising Sun, as I fear massive data loss on its thread. This version only has events for the first year of the war (and even then, they have potential flaws), and they don't yet include fairline's new US Naval dive bombers. The release can be found here:

http://www.evo-games.net/Home/viewtopic.php?t=576

Let me know what you think: and comments and criticisms are welcome.

[AGRICOLA]

Thanks for the look at your new scen. I completely agree with your description that it is pre-beta. The map is very fine and will make a fine canvas on which to play the scen.

Here are my initial comments after playing part of the first turn and doing some testing and reading.

1. Pearl Harbor needs city walls. Japanese Vals razed the city (and 12 units) on the first turn. So solly!

2. RR from Singapore to Pusan MUST be removed or have road sections. No Japanese player will use slow Freighters (Mv=6) to carry Freights from the south to the Home Islands if there is a RR.

3. Japanese naval movement is too slow. Give them Navigation and Magellan.

4. Mathilda and Westpoint Academy should be Matilda and West Point Academy.

5. What are an "Imp US Carrier" and "AIF"?

6. Change overall naming convention from "Sibrn Infantry" and "Chnse Cavalry" to "Siberian Inf" and "Chinese Cav".

7. No Hellcats or Corsairs until '43.

8. The A/D's of a fair number of units seem questionable.

B25 Mitchell (medium bomber) A/D=16/2
B24 Liberator (heavy bomber) A/D=14/2

Present numbers for fighters are
Wildcat A/D=7/3
Hellcat A/D=9/2
Corsair A/D=6/3
Warhawk A/D=8/4
Hurricane A/D=7/4
Spitfire A/D=6/3

Zero A/D=7/1

I think that they should be
Wildcat A/D=7/2
Hellcat A/D=9/2
Corsair A/D=9/2
Warhawk A/D=6/1
Hurricane A/D=6/2
Spitfire A/D=7/2

Zero A/D=8/2
In '41, '42 and part of '43, the Zero flew rings around Allied aircraft.

Also, IMO

Yamato A/D=14/13
Fuso A/D=13/10

should be something like

Yamato A/D=16/13
Fuso A/D=12/10

The Yamatos had 18.1" guns.

9. A 15 cm Field Gun is the same caliber as a naval 6" gun and is not a flat trajectory weapon. Surely, it can fire over city walls. I think that the 105mm Howitzer (~4" and ignore city walls) should be available at the start and the 15 cm Field Gun discovered later rather than the opposite. Also, unless you can find better ones, the icons for the two types should be interchanged. The A/D's also need adjustment.

10. In any future README, could you possibly provide a translation of the Japanese unit names.

11. At least some (30%?) of the Japanese air and ground units should be vets. These units have been in action in China since '35.

I'm going to make a few of the easier fixes and start the scen again.

[fairline]

Originally posted by AGRICOLA

I think that they should be
Wildcat A/D=7/2
Hellcat A/D=9/2
Corsair A/D=9/2
Warhawk A/D=6/1
Hurricane A/D=6/2
Spitfire A/D=7/2

Zero A/D=8/2

Agree (almost!) completely with Agricola's suggestions, with the exception of a couple of the fighter stats. If your (Patine) intention is to represent the MkVIII Spitfire in use by the Australians in the Pacific theatre, then this was one of the best fighters of the War. It had better armament, speed (with the exception of the Corsair) and handling than any of the other aircraft in the list; it's drawbacks were short range and less damage-resistance inherent with an in-line engined aircraft when compared with a radial-engined plane. I would give it the same (A) value as the Hellcat, perhaps 1 less (D) - which is tricky if you have such paltry defence values! - and half the range. I hate scenarios where fighters have no defensive ability BTW

If you do beef up defensive stats, then the US fighters had significantly better durability than their Japanese foes.

There's an argument to include a separate P-40 with significantly better stats for the Flying Tigers, given their phenomenal kill/loss ratio in China.

The Corsair and Hellcat should be available from mid-43 onwards.

John: is there any chance you can post or e-mail the changes you make to the scenario please?

[Patine]

I greatly appreciate the technical details leading to A/D values; these will be of great help. I would appreciate if you could also e-mail me the altered rules file, John; you should still have my e-mail address. Thanks to the both of you for your feedback; any further commentary, either from you or anyone else, will be appreciated. BTW, where do I stand in your graphics queue right now for those US dive bombers, fairline?

[Patine]

BTW, to answer your question, John, 'Imp US Carrier' is actually short for 'Improved US Carrier,' a catch-all for the superior classes of carrier such as the Essex and Hornet, while AIF is an Australian military designation used for those that joined US forces in the South Pacific; ask Case what exactly it stands for, as I'm not sure. BTW, I need some advice deciding what three units to axe to make room for the Dauntless, Devastator, and Helldiver (the 'Dauntless' in my pre-beta should actually be labelled an 'Avenger').

[Boco]

Australian Imperial Force.

I'm sorry to ask before downloading the scen, but are you using AEGIS for some of the better fighters? It's an effective means of improving their quality without making them into über-defenders against ground attacks.

[Patine]

I didn't think of that. It might be done for the official beta. Thanks, Boco!

[AGRICOLA]

Here's the next installment. It is said that, in these trying times of vanishing posts, it is truly wise to to post two long posts rather than one extra long one. No?


CITY WALLS
There is a fundamental difficulty with the Japanese unit mix at the start of the scenario. As they have no ground unit that can ignore city walls, any attempt to capture a city with ground units results in a Japanese bloodbath. The best bet for knocking out defenders seems to be the Kate dive bomber but there are not enough of them. With its present A/D=9/1, the Betty cannot be used for this purpose.

The result is that, historically, you want a rapid initial Japanese advance, yet the Japanese do not have the units to carry it out.

My attempt to remedy this involved exchanging the names, icons and A/D’s of the 15 cm Field Gun and the 105mm Howitzer, giving the 105 mm the “Can Ignore City Walls” flag and making the 15 cm with its better A/D unbuildable for the Japanese. So, Japan starts the scen with 29 105mm howies but cannot ever build the better 15cm gun. BTW, if you decide that the 15cm is to be solely an Allied weapon, perhaps its name should be changed to 155mm Howitzer, an American model. The best 155mm icon that I have seen is in vanilla CIV2.


HAWAII
I finally noticed that Hilo has no city walls. Slow!

There are Bettys among the a/c in the air around Pearl Harbor. I am not certain whether you intend that they can land on the carriers. If not, then in Dec ’41 they have to be used to destroy the US Marines on Midway in order to get themselves an airfield to land on in Dec ’41 and Jan ‘42. For realism, it would be better if only fighters and dive bombers can land on carriers.

I should add that ground units from Japan can arrive to occupy Pearl Harbor in March ‘42 and Hilo in April ‘42. This is sooner than US reinforcements can arrive from the west coast. Moving the landing craft that start the scen in Home Island cities to Korea or elsewhere might be one way to delay these unwanted invasions by one month.


FREIGHTERS
What is the function of Freighters which can move 6 squares but don’t seem to be able to carry any units? If you enable their ability to carry units, consider increasing their movement to that of Landing Craft (11 squares). Otherwise they will never be built or, if given by events, promptly disbanded to IRB Landing Craft.


ELIMINATING UNITS
Either one of the following a/c can be eliminated.

J2M Raiden (is it’s A/D=6/4 correct?). I seem to recall that it was designed to intercept bombers.

Ki-100 (is its A/D=4/3 is correct?) I vaguely recall posts on you lost thread about the Ki-100 being a world class fighter and so fast that it could not be caught by a Mustang.


THE 88MM AA GUN
The 88mm AA gun (80 shields) has an A/D=2/4 and +100% against missiles and a/c. Those numbers seem to be a bit too low to be effective and to warrant building the unit. Also, the present icon seems to be of the German 20mm Vierling AA unit. I have seen any number of excellent 88mm AA icons in various scens. You might consider renaming it to AA rather than using the name of a German gun.


DISBANDING
The support of existing units is using up a large number of shields in most Japanese cities. Being able to disband most units to free up shields and IRB is a very good idea on your part.


OKHAS
It requires 2 or 3 Okhas (@80 shields) to sink a US battleship (160 shields). Consequently, it makes more sense to build a Yamato for 160 shields than 2 Okhas for the same price. A Yamato with the present A/D can usually sink a US BB but will take very heavy damage in doing so.

The Okhas have a range of 14(28). I think that it would be closer to their actual performance to make them Mv=1 with a range of 10. Also, the cost should be reduced significantly to make them attractive to build. After all, they are a one-shot unit.


RR’s IN CHINA AND SE ASIA
The RR’s do need to be eliminated in China and SE Asia except for areas where the Japanese have been in control for a number of years and can reasonably be expected to have repaired or built them. There should be no RR in areas held by the Chinese or recently conquered by the Japanese. The Chinese would certainly have pillaged them, either in retreat or in anticipation of Japanese advances. Otherwise the initial Japanese advance in Dec ’41 is much too rapid. With the high road movement multiplier that you already have, the road speed of units is more than adequate.


CHINA
The Chinese countryside should be swarming with Chinese Inf and more Communist Insurgents, especially along routes that the Japanese need to use to advance. The Japanese should have to fight their way forward through a hostile countryside with lots of unit ZOC’s to overcome. You may consider amalgamating communist and nationalist guerrillas into a Chinese Irregulars unit. Make sure to put them and fortify them on all terrain squares that have a defensive bonus.

It should need only one event, using count and randomized spawning locations to refresh the number of Irregulars every turn. They should be a constant thorn in the side of the Japanese. See if you can get them to pillage everything in sight (probably need to put them in the Partisan slot). That should keep the Japanese invaders busy. Captain Nemo did this beautifully in Red Front where the Yugoslav Partizans were a pain in the neck to both the Germans and the Soviets. I think that we can safely assume that any Chinese Irregulars who create problems for the Chinese must be of the communist persuasion.


CHINDIT REBELS
I wonder if Chindits or Chindit Guerrillas might not be a more appropriate name.


@Fairline & Patine
I made only very minor changes to rules,

105mm Howitzer, Rob, 0, 2.,0, 10a,1d, 2h,2f, 8,0, 0, Too, 000000001000000
88mm AA Gun, nil, 0, 2.,0, 2a,4d, 2h,2f, 8,0, 3, Too, 010000000010000
15 cm Field Gun,nil, 0, 3.,0, 12a,2d, 3h,2f, 11,0, 0, Rob, 000000001000000

and changed

G4M Betty, nil, 1, 14.,2, 14a ,1d, 2h,2f, 16,0, 0, AFl, 000000000000001

to have the same A as Kate. I thought it useless to try to fine tune other units in a pre-beta.

[Patine]

Sorry to take so long responding, John. You have pointed out many oversights I seem to have made, which will be fixed in the full beta of this scen. I agree with all of your points and observations. If you discover any more flaws or areas needing improvement (or anyone else out there does for that matter), please feel free to post. Thanks a lot!

[AGRICOLA]

Don't worry about fast responses. I'm thankful that you are still speaking to me.

The scenario is playing well but may be too easy in some places and too difficult elsewhere and there are more of the bugs that are inevitably infest a pre-beta.

THE THAIS
I have said before that I much prefer two hostile AI civs to an allied one. Allied units wander around where they please and create problems by blocking roads. In this scen, the Thais literally cannot avoid cutting the RR to Singapore. I deemed that both unrealistic and unacceptable. I have set Thai Inf to have Mv=0, disbanded their few other units and made Thai Inf the only unit that they can build. I can see no other way around this problem short of letting the Japanese take over their cities.


CARRIERS
Several ship types have the AEGIS flag, SAKAWA CLASS CL, CRUISER, CARRIER and IMP US CARRIER. I’m not sure that CRUISER deserves it. However, the AEGIS flag makes the two carrier types almost impervious to air attacks from carrier as well as land based aircraft. The unintended consequences are twofold:
- Japan and the US should not use aircraft to attack enemy carriers.
- Japan would be stupid to build carriers of any type other than the generic CARRIER. There is no reason to build any of the improved types which have no AEGIS flag.

I have removed AEGIS flags from all ships.


CHINDITS
Surprise! When Rangoon fell in Jan ’42, 14 effing Chindit Rebels showed up around the city. I protest!

- The Chindits were a small, highly organised and air supplied force, not a bleeding army of rebel rabble.
- IMO, there is no way that a significant indigenous guerrilla movement could or would have sprung up in either Burma or India during WW2. Neither the Burmese nor the Indians had any reason to love the British Raj. Why would they rise up and get killed for the hated imperialists who had practised a policy of ruthlessly suppressing any ideas of independence? All the Japanese would have had to do was drop leaflets asking why Burmese and Indians are fighting fellow Asians who have come to “liberate” them from the yoke of their European oppressors.

I think that the British should not have the Guerrilla tech. IMO, they should, however, be able to build the Chindit unit. The unit should possibly have the 2-space visibility, ignore ZOC and alpine flags.


GURKHAS etc.
In Feb ’42, 8 belligerent Gurkha units showed up in the rugged terrain north of Rangoon. I have no idea of the actual number of Gurkha regiments in the British army, but this seems a bit excessive.

Furthermore, in the interest of historical accuracy, at the start of the scen I removed all RR (and road) connections between Mandalay and Dhaka (ie Burma and India). AFAIK, at present there is only a road link between the two cities and I have no idea if that road existed 60+ years ago. IIRC, I have seen no mention of a road in any of my reading about the Japanese invasion of India. Can any of our excellent resident historians shed light on this?

With their forces stretched to the utmost in North Africa where Rommel was on the loose, the British lacked the strength to reinforce either India or Burma. Also, with no road, the only way to move troops to Burma was by ship from India to Rangoon. I think that scen events in India and Burma are running far ahead of history. Historically, the British had their hands full in turning back a rather ragtag Japanese invasion a few years later. By all means build up the defensive forces in India to make any Japanese invasion almost impossible but don’t use events to create Gurkhas or other units in places where they could not possibly have appeared and have them launch offensive actions against the Japanese.

This argument also applies to the attempted US amphib landing (absolute disaster) in the Gulf of Tonkin in Jan ’42 as well as the appearance of very major US forces in Australia in Jan ’42. These events are much too early.


CHINA
Chinese and Barbarian cities are too easily captured by the Japanese. I would recommend that their garrisons be increased to 15++ units and that the defenders be prevented from leaving their cities to commit suicide by attacking Japanese units behind city walls.


F4 WILDCAT
At the start of the scen, the US cannot build Wildcats but can build Corsairs (not seen in combat before fall of ’43).


SHIP MOVEMENTS
The map is too big for the movements presently assigned to ships. For example, the Japanese naval units involved in the Pearl Harbor attack will need 5 or more months to get back to either Tokyo (homeland defense), Hong Kong (for Philippine attack) or Singapore (for operations against the East Indies, India and Australia).

One fix would be to increase all ship Mv by at least 5. I have opted to give the Japanese the Lighthouse, Magellan and the Naval Engineering (Nuclear Power) tech to increase their ship movements by 4. Most US ships show up via events so movement is less of an issue with them.


AIRCRAFT RANGES
Perhaps someone knowledgeable could take a look at a/c Mv’s. Some seem a bit out of line. I’ve increased the range of the Betty and the Zero.


MINOR POINTS
- The US has no money at the start.
- A popup at the fall of Hong Kong says that the city was defended by a Motley Crewe. I found HK to have a full-fledged garrison of all kinds of very nasty units.
- Is there a reason why the Giyugen Hohei (Home Guards?) unit cannot be built? It looks rather useful.
- Yamato class BB’s entered service in ’42 but they are so distant along the tech tree that it is unlikely that Japan can build them before some time in ’43.
- The Okha has no tech prerequisite and is not on the tech tree. It appears to be unbuildable at any time.
- [gripe]I’m getting fed up with trying to sort out Giyugen Hohei, Senpaku Hohei, Kantogun Hohei, Hohei Butai, Teishi Dan, Kempeitai, Type 4 Chi-To, Type 94 Ha-Go and Type 97 Chi-Ha, especially where the Type 94 has better numbers than the Type 97. Any chance of reverting to good English descriptions such as Imperial Marines, Elite Inf, Paratroops, Garrison Inf, Cannon Fodder, etc.?[/gripe]

[AGRICOLA]

I think that you may want to take a look at techs which have no,no as prerequisites.

I couldn't edit out the Chindit Resistance tech (Gue) from the British tech list until I changed its prerequisites to nil,nil. The tech did not appear on the British Edit Technologies list when its prerequisites were no,no.

Similarly, the unbuilable Okha became buildable when the prerequisites for its tech, Divine Wind (Roc), were changed from no,no to nil,nil. There may be others.

Seems that "no,no" is a nono for techs that need "nil,nil" . No?

[Kugelregen]

My contribution to the discussion will be meager compared to Agricola.

I know this was discussed before the big delete in the forum, but I still cannot figure out the justification for, what by my count, is 7 infantry units available to the Japanese (6 Japanese, 1 French). The French infantry in particular seems ill placed (It has the exact same stats as the Kantogun Hohei infantry unit, making it completely redundant IMHO.). I realize all the infantry units add flavor to the scenario, but from a practical standpoint, I don't really see players building all 7 types of infantry. I think you can accomplish having lots of infantry available to the Japanese, while at the same time, making it appealing for players to build different infantry. I would suggest maybe 5: a general or defensive, amphibious, paratrooper, ignore city walls, and suicide.

Indeed, if you still want 7, you could make two infantry appear in two of the catagories, which I assume you might have intended with the French infantry. For this strategy to be effective, however, you need to at least have some difference in the unit to make it appealing to build. For example, in the French infantry/Kantogun Hohei example, maybe make one of them cost less to build. Otherwise, there is no practical reason for a player to build French infantry AND Kantogun Hohei.

Another way to justify the 7 infantry would be to make some of them become obsolete (you might have done this, I just didn't get a chance to check!).

If you change to just five infantry, you could clear up two unit slots, which might present you with more options for making the japanese fighting force more diverse. I would consider incorporating the I400 class submarines. They were not widely built during the war (only something like 3 or 4 were ever in service!!), but they were an impressive feat of engineering and imagination. They were the biggest subs to be built during world war two. They each could carry 1 or 2 planes, which upon surfacing, could be assembled, and then launched from the submarine. The Japanese originally intended the submarines for an attack on the Panama canal. You could have a submarine unit with the ability to carry one fighter.

What about a midget submarine, something the japanese also excelled in building?

I know the I400 never saw action in the war, but I am just presenting it as an idea to get the creative juices flowing. As a scenario player, I really find 7 infantry to be redundant.

Good luck with the rest of the scenario!!

[Kugelregen]

Also, another suggestion to make the infantry more diverse, if you really want the 7... This is related to Agricola's earlier comment about needing something like 30% of the Japanese infantry to be veteran from the start, representing the infantry who have been fighting in China since '35.

Instead of making some of the units veteran, you could make an actual unit, which, of course, should not be buildable, to represent the cracked '35 Japanese units. I'm thinking of a dishelved looking troop a la "Nemo's Red Front cracked Siberian troops". These would not be green troops and would have a lot of attributes, ie veteran, ignore city walls, amphibious. They would be extremely valuable to the player because of their experience and their being finite, ie you could not build them.

[AGRICOLA]

You are absolutely bang on with your comment that

Originally posted by Kugelregen

I know this was discussed before the big delete in the forum, but I still cannot figure out the justification for, what by my count, is 7 infantry units available to the Japanese (6 Japanese, 1 French). The French infantry in particular seems ill placed (It has the exact same stats as the Kantogun Hohei infantry unit, making it completely redundant IMHO.). I realize all the infantry units add flavor to the scenario, but from a practical standpoint, I don't really see players building all 7 types of infantry. I think you can accomplish having lots of infantry available to the Japanese, while at the same time, making it appealing for players to build different infantry. I would suggest maybe 5: a general or defensive, amphibious, paratrooper, ignore city walls, and suicide.

Of the 7 Japanese Inf units . . . . Giyugen Hohei, Senpaku Hohei, Kantogun Hohei, Hohei Butai, Teishi Dan, Kempeitai, French Inf . . . . the only one that I would consider building is Giyugen Hohei with its D=5. Unfortunately, the unit is not buildable. The rest I consider cannon fodder and I never build units that are almost certain to become casualties.

What I am building are
- 105mm howies for attacking cities
- Type 4 tanks (when they become available) for their defensive strength (D=5)
- Bettys to attack, interdict enemy movement, protect stacks of ground units and long range recce.
- Some Kates for their multiple attack capability.
- Engineers, primarily to build a road to the riches of India (Japanese version of Burma Road).

I see no immediate need for additional fighter a/c or ships.

So, for practical purposes, I have no employment for the Inf units. They are too weak to attack enemy units behind city walls or on ground which has a defensive bonus. Neither are they particularly good defensively. They also use up a large number of shields for support. The only thing that one can do with them is to disband them to IRB powerful, needed units. No point in sending them out to get killed for little gain.

IMO, the most expensive unit that a player can build is one which cannot do significant damage to the enemy before itself being destroyed.

[Patine]

@AGRICOLA: I agree with your comments on the Thai being a nuissance, the Chindit not being run as guerillas, Chinese and barbarian garrisons, Gurkhas, ship movement and aircraft ranges. The advanced Japanese carriers not having AEGIS and the switching of the Wildcat and Corsair were honest mistakes. As for the US not having money, I thought I'd given them some; could be wrong. The Giyugen Hohei are indeed home guards and were originally unavailable to be built to keep them to the Home Islands; that may have been an oversight. The Yamato-class BB probably should be easier to research, whereas the Okha tech was meant to be granted by an event (again, possibly an oversight). And, I may translate the names of Japanese units after all, given how much confusion they've caused. To be honest, I've found much the same problem with infantry, so I may reallow Home Guard and do as below.

@Kugelregen: Well, first, I'd planned a house rule restricting the building of French Infantry to Indo-China and Kantogun Hohei (Manchukuo Troops) to Manchuria. Otherwise, I may well take for advice on diverdifying special abilities. For instance, offensive infantry (Hohei Butai) may ignore city walls, potentially making them deadlier.

Thanks, both of you, for your time in examining my scen. Future comments (from you or anyone else) are always welcome.