DICTATOR ToT - DEVELOPMENT THREAD!

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by techumseh
"Pocket Battleships" were technically not battleships at all, but upgunned heavy cruisers. Erika is right, they were built to avoid certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty. They had deisel engines and mounted 6 11" guns in two turrets. Like battlecruisers, they were intended to outrun what they could not fight.

The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were actual battlecruisers, mounting 6 11" guns in three turrets. They were no match for real battleships, the Scharnhorst being blown up by a single salvo from the Duke of York.

Battlecruisers could mount guns as big as a battleship. The Hood mounted 8 15" guns, the same as the Bismarck, and was actually bigger. When it came to a battle, the sacrifice of armor for speed proved fatal for the Hood.

The Bismarck was not really more powerfully armed compared to other modern battleships of the time (8 15" guns vs. 10 14" for the King George class or 9 16" for American battleships launched in the same period. It was very well armored though, and you might want to increase it's DF or give it an extra hit when doing the rules. I hope this helps.

Cheers!

The German ship is meant to represent the Bismarck types...
So I am going to rename it the 'pocket battleship' here
are the stats in comparison to a regular battleship...

Battleship, nil, 2, 6.,0, 10a,10d, 8h,2f, 16,0, 0, Nav, 000000000000000

Pocket Battleship, nil, 2, 7.,0, 10a,12d, 9h,2f, 17,0, 0, Nav, 000000000000000

[curtsibling]

Code meister Catfish has revealed the secrets of barbarian treaties in ToT!

I quote:

"Thirdly, setting up treaties with Barbarians. The treaties are located in the following bytes (ToT 1.1 only):

2984-3015 + 3348N, where N is the civ number (0-7), starting with Barbarians."

This will help keep the Russians and Brits from attacking the barbs, hopefully!

The man is a genius!

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by techumseh
Ahh, but the caption immediately below says "Scharnhorst and her sister ship were designed to accept 380 mm (15-in) guns, but wartime conditions prevented this."

In any event, they don't fit any generally accepted definition of "battleship". They were battlecruisers - and weak ones at that.

Well, the definitions aren't mine.

As I mentioned previously:

The British classified both the Scharnhorst and her sister ship as battlecruisers.

However, the Germans (who built them) classified them as battleships.

If you click on the link below, and scroll down the page, you will see books that give the name "Battleship" to both ships.

http://www.kbismarck.com/scharnhorst.html

So, technically, one could call those ships battlecruisers or battleships and both terms would be correct.

You prefer using the British classification, while others use the German. Both are correct.

Both ships had armour on par with battleships, and the designers had allowed for replacing the initially placed 11" guns, with 15" guns at a later date.

[curtsibling]

I am planning to use the pocket battleship anyhoo, so let this naval duel end!

[curtsibling]

OK - After some play, I am dropping the War Supplies unit,
as they add little to game play and fill the world with useless,
wandering units...

Any suggestions on a new unit to replace it?

I am thinking of an immobile garrison unit or can anyone suggest a WW2 unit that they think should be in there?



Perhaps another tank unit for Japan?

Perhaps a US liberty ship?

Also, I think it is too easy to build massive armies, thus I
am going to radically change the unit costs again, to make
the loss of certain units in a theatre really hurt...

More to come...

[AGRICOLA]

Originally posted by curtsibling

OK - After some play, I am dropping the War Supplies unit, as they add little to game play and fill the world with useless, wandering units...

I certainly agree that the AI doesn't know what to do with War Supplies. But do all civs in Dictator TOT have adequately robust economies if they are played by a human? Sometimes, developing trade routes and collecting delivery bonuses is the only way to victory.

[curtsibling]

This is true...

But I have put enough money-generating industry in the
path of each civ to make sure they can gain some extra capital!



I am going to spend the rest of this week fixing many shortfalls
I am seeing in the scenario, including the Canada issue...

I have decided to remove the Commonwealth civ and add
the Chinese as an enemy for the Japanese...And the extra
unit might be a P-40 Warhawk...Not decided yet...

I will be restructuring the Allied and Axis attacks to make
the game more challenging.

Also I will be experimenting with the unit stats to get better
use from them. I expect to have something new this
weekend.

I will be checking back here daily, so please keep posting
and tell me any ideas or suggestions!

[rmsharpe]

Hooray! It would be great to beat back the Japanese as China, and for the Commonwealth to be reunited once again!

[rmsharpe]

A thought. If you can control the treaties with barbarians, you could use the "neutral" civ for a new one.

The only problem I can imagine is that Germany may attack Spain, Sweden, Turkey, etc. -- although, one may say it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

[Patine]

Though I'd certainly give Canada and South Africa to the Brits, I'd give Australia and New Zealand to the US (pretty much all Australian and New Zealander involvement in the war was in cooperation with the Americans).

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
A thought. If you can control the treaties with barbarians, you could use the "neutral" civ for a new one.

That is an exciting possibility!



If I can get the Barbs as the Neutrals, that would be perfect!

The trick is making them allied with everyone, is this possible, giben Catfish's code?

Originally posted by rmsharpe The only problem I can imagine is that Germany may attack Spain, Sweden, Turkey, etc. -- although, one may say it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

I see the possibilities of a Italy/minor Axis civ!

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Patine
Though I'd certainly give Canada and South Africa to the Brits, I'd give Australia and New Zealand to the US (pretty much all Australian and New Zealander involvement in the war was in cooperation with the Americans).

Sounds good to me!

I have made one version of the Sherman and Wolverine to
be buildable by the US and UK, so things will be interesting...

[AGRICOLA]

Originallyposted by curtsibling
If I can get the Barbs as the Neutrals, that would be perfect!

The trick is making them allied with everyone, is this possible, giben Catfish's code?

Yes, thanks to Catfish locating the key bytes, its no problem. I did it in MGE for Jim Pense about a month ago. Please E-mail the file when you are ready.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Patine
......(pretty much all Australian and New Zealander involvement in the war was in cooperation with the Americans).

No it didn't. The 2nd NZ Division served with distinction in the Mediterranean with the British 8th Army from Greece/Crete through all of the subsequent N. African campaign and on into Italy. The 3rd NZ Div. served in the Pacific in New Caledonia under US command. HMNZS Achilles and Leander fought alongside the RN prior to Pearl Harbor.

As for Australia, the bulk of her army fought in the Middle East with the British prior to Pearl Harbour; you are partly right that subsequent to Japan starting hostilities most transferred to the Pacific and fought with the Yanks, although one division stayed to fight on at El Alamein.

That certainly doesn't constitute 'pretty much all... involvement in the war was in cooperation with the Americans'.

[Patine]

I was mostly referring to post-Pearl Harbor activities, actually. Sorry if I downplayed any actions of glory or distinction by the Australian or New Zealand militaries in Europe or Africa. I thought there participation there was minimal. My source was somewhat flawed, and I apologize for spouting inaccurate data.