Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/4/2010 1:37:37 AM   
medicff

 

Posts: 710
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

Some of the Kiwi base forces are Aussie green: 6254, 6255, 6258



The Kiwi base forces appear to upgrade squads through the CMF path, I am not sure if that is the reason for the aussie colors though as they continue until NZ inf.

Pat

(in reply to Central Blue)
Post #: 211
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/4/2010 2:51:25 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Radar Devices 1598 through 1608 are all available 12/41. Is this correct/intended?

These are ship radars and introduction timing depends on ship upgrade scheduling. Device availability date doesn’t really matter so long as the device is available when the ship is.
quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff
The Kiwi base forces appear to upgrade squads through the CMF path, I am not sure if that is the reason for the aussie colors though as they continue until NZ inf.

Pat

They were green because somebody forgot to change the LCU nationality from Aus to NZ on those little puppies.


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to medicff)
Post #: 212
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/4/2010 5:40:40 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Radar Devices 1598 through 1608 are all available 12/41. Is this correct/intended?

These are ship radars and introduction timing depends on ship upgrade scheduling. Device availability date doesn’t really matter so long as the device is available when the ship is.
quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff
The Kiwi base forces appear to upgrade squads through the CMF path, I am not sure if that is the reason for the aussie colors though as they continue until NZ inf.

Pat

They were green because somebody forgot to change the LCU nationality from Aus to NZ on those little puppies.



NZ SAS is coming to get you for that! Mistaking Kiwis to Australians! Willie Apiata is now mad!




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Apiata

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 213
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/4/2010 8:01:30 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
NZ SAS is coming to get you for that! Mistaking Kiwis to Australians! Willie Apiata is now mad!

Sy'mon says - I like de hairdo. I have a nice hat for de mon.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 214
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/4/2010 9:41:07 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Looks more like a hair don't. Make sure it's a big hat!

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 215
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/5/2010 6:01:08 AM   
noguaranteeofsanity


Posts: 257
Joined: 11/24/2009
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		There is still a few errors I noticed with the Australian artillery in the latest release:

5959: 2/11th Field Regiment should be Australian, its currently British.

5960: 2/1st Field Regiment should be part of the 6th Division TOE, rather than be present as a separate unit as it was one of the Divisional artillery units. It seems to appear in place of the 2/13th Field Artillery Regiment.

6062: 13th Field Regiment should be 2/13th Field Regiment as it was one of the AIF's Corps artillery units, its also currently a British Unit and should be Australian, while begins the game in Port Moresby when it should probably arrive in Aden with the 2/9th and 2/11th Field Artillery, taking the place of the 2/1st Field Artillery in the editor, as noted above. It appears to have been pasted over the top of the old Port Moresby Brigade and should instead perhaps be a blank slot, if the intention was to remove the brigade, since the NG Vol Rifles, Port Moresby and 49th Battalion, no longer have it listed as their parent unit, otherwise should obviously be the Port Moresby Brigade.

See here for reference: http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-conflicts-periods/ww2/pages-2aif-cmf/order_of_battle.htm

Edit: The 2/13th should probably also have the same TOE as the 2/9th and 2/11th Field Artillery as part of the 2nd AIF's Corps Artillery, it currently has 18 pounder guns, while the 2/1st Field Artillery that appears in its place has 60 pounder guns.

< Message edited by noguaranteeofsanity -- 9/5/2010 6:13:17 AM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 216
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/5/2010 2:28:36 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		Our sources show a 13th Field Bn (-) RAA at Moresby along with the NGVR Bn, Papua Bn, and 49th Bn (-). It wasn’t the same as the AIF 2/13th. Device 5960 should be named 2/1st “Med” Arty. It was a corps unit with 60 pdrs, and was different from the 2/1st Field that was part of 6th Aus Div. We’ll fix them so they are all Australian.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to noguaranteeofsanity)
Post #: 217
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/5/2010 2:28:53 PM   
drw61


Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline 		Pilots not assigned to the correct Air Groups-

The FAA Squadrons were moved and the pilots were not updated to the new locations.
some examples
Pilot 5355 is set to Air group 1941 should be Air group 2361
Pilots 5322 to 5327 should be set to Air group 2341
Pilots 5313 to 5315 should be set to Air group 2335


(in reply to noguaranteeofsanity)
Post #: 218
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/5/2010 2:58:52 PM   
noguaranteeofsanity


Posts: 257
Joined: 11/24/2009
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Our sources show a 13th Field Bn (-) RAA at Moresby along with the NGVR Bn, Papua Bn, and 49th Bn (-). It wasn’t the same as the AIF 2/13th. Device 5960 should be named 2/1st “Med” Arty. It was a corps unit with 60 pdrs, and was different from the 2/1st Field that was part of 6th Aus Div. We’ll fix them so they are all Australian.

Thanks JWE, was just about to update my post after quickly reading through the relevant official histories to double check, you are correct and the 13th Field Regiment was at Port Moresby and is a different unit to the 2/13th. While the 'Field' designation for the 2/1st instead of 'Med' would explain things, apologies for the confusion and mistake.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 219
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/5/2010 3:06:19 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: noguaranteeofsanity
Thanks JWE, was just about to update my post after quickly reading through the relevant official histories to double check, you are correct and the 13th Field Regiment was at Port Moresby and is a different unit to the 2/13th. While the 'Field' designation for the 2/1st instead of 'Med' would explain things, apologies for the confusion and mistake.

No Worries mate.

@drw61 - Whoops! Yeah, forgot to update the pilots. Put an updated version in place (todays date) with pilots fixed up and Aus Arty units tagged as Aussies.

Ciao.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to noguaranteeofsanity)
Post #: 220
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/7/2010 8:06:24 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline 		Possible error, TF 474 & 481 appear to headed in the wrong directions, back where they loaded their cargo/fuel. Easy tweak with the Editor under the task force section.

< Message edited by Buck Beach -- 9/7/2010 8:07:49 PM >

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 221
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/7/2010 9:53:19 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Possible error, TF 474 & 481 appear to headed in the wrong directions, back where they loaded their cargo/fuel. Easy tweak with the Editor under the task force section.


I don't see this.

TF 474, tanker Anders Jahre, was enroute Palembang to pick up oil for shipment to Sydney. This is historically correct and the scenario shows it. However, there is a function in AE that gives a random cargo to single merchant ships at sea as of scenario start. This is to simulate regular merchant traffic. There is no way to control this function, so the historically-empty Anders Jahres gets a cargo.

TF 481 - army chartered freighter Montgomery City. This ship was carrying goods for USAFFE and was enroute Pearl Harbor (to join the next Philippine convoy, I think). She shows enroute Pearl with a cargo, which I believe is correct.

Are these the two TFs?

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 222
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/7/2010 10:21:16 PM   
asdicus

 

Posts: 260
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Surrey,UK
Status: offline 		Looking at scenario 28 possible problem at singapore. Land unit 6632 Malayan air wing is an engineer unit - when you click on show TOE it says no TOE available. This might be because it is now an engineer unit - different from stock ??

Thanks for this work on this mod. Enjoying looking at all the changes from the standard scenario. I think it is a good thing to slow down the building of ports and airbases - makes the game far more realistic.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 223
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/8/2010 1:35:07 AM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Possible error, TF 474 & 481 appear to headed in the wrong directions, back where they loaded their cargo/fuel. Easy tweak with the Editor under the task force section.


I don't see this.

TF 474, tanker Anders Jahre, was enroute Palembang to pick up oil for shipment to Sydney. This is historically correct and the scenario shows it. However, there is a function in AE that gives a random cargo to single merchant ships at sea as of scenario start. This is to simulate regular merchant traffic. There is no way to control this function, so the historically-empty Anders Jahres gets a cargo.

TF 481 - army chartered freighter Montgomery City. This ship was carrying goods for USAFFE and was enroute Pearl Harbor (to join the next Philippine convoy, I think). She shows enroute Pearl with a cargo, which I believe is correct.

Are these the two TFs?


I typo'd 481 I was referring to the Ellenga TF488 and the Andres Jahre. I had forgotten about that the start TF are already loaded by default. My bad, but I still think I would head those two suckers to the nearest needy port after turn one and the stuff hits the fan.

Sorry for the confusion.

Buck

< Message edited by Buck Beach -- 9/8/2010 1:36:59 AM >

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 224
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/8/2010 7:25:29 AM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline 		I just restarted with the latest release of DaBigBabes.  After running the first turn, I gave orders for DEC 8.  One of those orders is to the convoy carrying the British infantry Division off-map.  I changes the destination {and home port} to Columbo.  On DEC 9, they arrived.  This also happened on the last version of DaBigBabes that I started a a month or so ago.  I do not remember it happening with stock. 

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 225
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/8/2010 2:53:26 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

I just restarted with the latest release of DaBigBabes.  After running the first turn, I gave orders for DEC 8.  One of those orders is to the convoy carrying the British infantry Division off-map.  I changes the destination {and home port} to Columbo.  On DEC 9, they arrived.  This also happened on the last version of DaBigBabes that I started a a month or so ago.  I do not remember it happening with stock. 


Changing home port would most likely be the problem.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2179384

(edit)

I ran some tests. This is not an issue with Babes but with the very complex cross-map movement system in AE. Long, sad, story but the original design was a simple here-to-there-with-no-options system that grew until it broke the back of the original design. Using a no-talent idiot to do the code didn't help either.

But I could not reproduce a problem with the Capetown-Singapore convoy by changing destination and home port to Columbo. I ran the test with development code that includes some fixes not yet released, so the specific hole in the dyke may now have a Dutch Boy's finger stuck in it.

Let me close by saying that I am no longer on the support team for AE. I do try to help out whenever I can but that is all.



< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 9/8/2010 4:34:13 PM >

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 226
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/9/2010 5:31:05 AM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline 		Thanks Don.  All your hard work is appreciated. 

I figured it wasn't a Babes bug but I don't remember having it in stock.  Not a bad bug unless the AI decides to invade Ceylon in December of 41. 

Let's hear it for Dutch boy fingers!

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 227
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/17/2010 12:29:10 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Posted this in the main air OOB section as it pertains to the stock scenarios as well. I've checked the latest Babes release (scenario 28 anyway) and this is still present.

quote:

The USN SB2C-5 (slot 484) has no radar, but all previous models of the SB2C do have radar. Is this correct or an oversight?

EDIT to add: I've looked around and I have not seen any reference to radar being deleted in the -5, only fuel capacity being added. So, I presume this is an error and should have the same radar as the previous model.


(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 228
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/20/2010 6:41:07 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Posted this in the main air OOB section as it pertains to the stock scenarios as well. I've checked the latest Babes release (scenario 28 anyway) and this is still present.
quote:

The USN SB2C-5 (slot 484) has no radar, but all previous models of the SB2C do have radar. Is this correct or an oversight?

EDIT to add: I've looked around and I have not seen any reference to radar being deleted in the -5, only fuel capacity being added. So, I presume this is an error and should have the same radar as the previous model.


Oversight most likely. Believe up to and including the -4, they came stock with the ASB yagi. Some of the -4s, designated -4Es, had an underwing APS-4 instead of the ASB. Seems the -5 had an APS-4 as standard equipment, in addition to a bit more fuel capacity.


We'll fix this in DaBabes, and send a note to Brother timtom. In the meantime, just add device 1861 as Wpn-3, and Wpn-13 (you should move the bombs down).
[e] don't forget to add it to "both" 3 and 13. Ciao.



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by JWE -- 9/20/2010 6:42:42 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 229
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/20/2010 6:45:31 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

In the meantime, just add device 1861 as Wpn-3, and Wpn-13 (you should move the bombs down).
[e] don't forget to add it to "both" 3 and 13. Ciao.



Thanks. And a picture too!

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 230
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/21/2010 4:45:48 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Our sources show a 13th Field Bn (-) RAA at Moresby along with the NGVR Bn, Papua Bn, and 49th Bn (-).


Australian Army OOB in WW2 is driving me crazy! Bns being attached first to one Bde and then to another, Bdes being swapped between Divs, Bn merged and then seperated again ("55th/53rd Bn") - not modding-friendly...

In the BigBabes, 49th Bn is in PM at the start and the 30th Bde is in the reinforcement queue.

But 49th Bn was part of the 30th Bde. The other two Bns which originally made up the balance of 30th Bde (39th and 53rd) where forming in the Melbourne resp. Sydney area at the start of the war and moved to PM in January 42. Why not modelling the three seperate Bns, with an inactive 30th Bde as parent formation for eventual recombination?

To complicate matters (see above), 30th Bde, 39th Bn and 49th Bns were disbanded in July 43 while the 53rd Bn got "amalgamated" with the 55th Bn in October 42 and was eventually detached from 30th Bde, while the 3rd Bn joined later. For simplicity, a disband date for 30 Bde and the three original component Bn would be nice.

Last but not least, the 8th Military District HQ at PM is missing (the 7th MD at Darwin is in the game - why not the 8th?) with MG Basil Morris commanding - conveniently found in the db already. The name should change to New Guinea Force (in April 42, IIRC).

Btw, I love Bigbabes! Just wanted to mention a few potential improvements...

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to noguaranteeofsanity)
Post #: 231
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/21/2010 8:03:46 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
Australian Army OOB in WW2 is driving me crazy! Bns being attached first to one Bde and then to another, Bdes being swapped between Divs, Bn merged and then seperated again ("55th/53rd Bn") - not modding-friendly...

Oh, frikkin tell me about it mate. It’s worse than trying to follow the conversation of four sheilas on a pub crawl. Bloody oath! Woof!!
quote:

In the BigBabes, 49th Bn is in PM at the start and the 30th Bde is in the reinforcement queue. But 49th Bn was part of the 30th Bde. The other two Bns which originally made up the balance of 30th Bde (39th and 53rd) where forming in the Melbourne resp. Sydney area at the start of the war and moved to PM in January 42. Why not modelling the three seperate Bns, with an inactive 30th Bde as parent formation for eventual recombination?

Could do that. Will look, but next question tends to complicate matters.
quote:

To complicate matters (see above), 30th Bde, 39th Bn and 49th Bns were disbanded in July 43 while the 53rd Bn got "amalgamated" with the 55th Bn in October 42 and was eventually detached from 30th Bde, while the 3rd Bn joined later. For simplicity, a disband date for 30 Bde and the three original component Bn would be nice.

Good oil, but might wanna look at timelines and do some fancy dancing. Won’t say yes, but will say we’ll have a look.
quote:

Last but not least, the 8th Military District HQ at PM is missing (the 7th MD at Darwin is in the game - why not the 8th?) with MG Basil Morris commanding - conveniently found in the db already. The name should change to New Guinea Force (in April 42, IIRC).

Yeah, why the heck not. Maybe ‘cause the original OOB was done by some pom and we just didn’t catch it. Thinking on it, it stands out like dogs balls.
quote:

Btw, I love Bigbabes! Just wanted to mention a few potential improvements...

What this mod is all about. Turns out that people are providing exceptional input from all them hitherto ‘neglected’ participants. Wicked cool stuff; floats my boat and gets Don Bowen aroused. Thanks to ya’ll, I truly believe DaBabes will define the ultimate in Pacific Theater wargaming.

Bring it on !!!

Ciao. John


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 232
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/22/2010 8:27:57 PM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline 		I notice that the MAG's are pulling their commanders from a list of generals rather than colonels, however that works.

IRL, they were colonels, as shown in the task organization and command lists in the History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations in World War II.

My dad's look at the elephant came on Guadalcanal, and in the Solomon's on the staff of MAG 14, where his boss was a Lt. Col. Cooley.

I don't really know what the big impact would be. Maybe not as much opportunity to micro-manage since there aren't many USMC generals. Few of them have any air skill to speak of, if that means anything. Given Marine air doctrine, I would think that they were at least good administrators, and more than a little aggressive, whatever air skill means for them.

_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 233
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/22/2010 8:40:49 PM   
stuman


Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline 		Guys, I have started a BigBabes game as Allies against the AI and am having a blast. I must admit that I think I am spending more time reading and researching than moving units, but this mod is a lot of fun.

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley


(in reply to Central Blue)
Post #: 234
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/22/2010 8:59:04 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		+1. 

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to stuman)
Post #: 235
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/22/2010 10:33:59 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
I notice that the MAG's are pulling their commanders from a list of generals rather than colonels, however that works.

IRL, they were colonels, as shown in the task organization and command lists in the History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations in World War II.

My dad's look at the elephant came on Guadalcanal, and in the Solomon's on the staff of MAG 14, where his boss was a Lt. Col. Cooley.

I don't really know what the big impact would be. Maybe not as much opportunity to micro-manage since there aren't many USMC generals. Few of them have any air skill to speak of, if that means anything. Given Marine air doctrine, I would think that they were at least good administrators, and more than a little aggressive, whatever air skill means for them.

Yes, I see that too. Think it is just an artifact of designating a unit as an HQ (and Unit Type 03 - non-INF). Was hoping against hope I could assign Lt Col Clyde W ('The Dawk') Dawkins as MAG 21 commander, but pilots and leaders and units and hierarchies and bears (oh, my!) just don't want to play nicely together. Gotta go with what we gots, unfortunately.

Another wierd one is Marine Generals were very fungible. Roy Geiger commanded 1st MAW (as a 1 star), then the Cactus Air Force (as a 2 star), and then the 1st Phib Corps (as a 3 star). Maybe we should just give all Marine leaders a 90 - 90 - 90 rating, just to be safe (except if there was an Arty rating, we would have to give Pedro a 130 for that)

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Central Blue)
Post #: 236
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/23/2010 4:46:48 AM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
I notice that the MAG's are pulling their commanders from a list of generals rather than colonels, however that works.

IRL, they were colonels, as shown in the task organization and command lists in the History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations in World War II.

My dad's look at the elephant came on Guadalcanal, and in the Solomon's on the staff of MAG 14, where his boss was a Lt. Col. Cooley.

I don't really know what the big impact would be. Maybe not as much opportunity to micro-manage since there aren't many USMC generals. Few of them have any air skill to speak of, if that means anything. Given Marine air doctrine, I would think that they were at least good administrators, and more than a little aggressive, whatever air skill means for them.



Another wierd one is Marine Generals were very fungible. Roy Geiger commanded 1st MAW (as a 1 star), then the Cactus Air Force (as a 2 star), and then the 1st Phib Corps (as a 3 star). Maybe we should just give all Marine leaders a 90 - 90 - 90 rating, just to be safe (except if there was an Arty rating, we would have to give Pedro a 130 for that)


There's the game, and then there was real life -- guys like Geiger. Came in as enlisted man, did sea duty, the Caribbean, China, volunteered for aviation, was part of putting together close air support in Haiti, got into officering somehow . . .

They're all riflemen. So, I like your hypothetical rating.



_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 237
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/23/2010 8:58:43 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
What this mod is all about. Turns out that people are providing exceptional input from all them hitherto ‘neglected’ participants. Wicked cool stuff; floats my boat and gets Don Bowen aroused. Thanks to ya’ll, I truly believe DaBabes will define the ultimate in Pacific Theater wargaming.

Bring it on !!!

Ciao. John



Well, then here is more "small fry" and not-so-(un)important places:

Sio (hex 99/125) is not in the game, but neighboring Saidor is a beach dot. Both locations had sizable Japanese garrisons and and were later captured by Australian forces. Granted, only Saidor held some importance as it was developed into an air base, but Sio should at least be a beach dot as well - it was used as barge staging point. Interesstingly, Saidor in Allied hands was developped into a sizeable airbase not only to support the attacks against Wewak and Hollandia, but also for night-missions, since the main base at Nadzdab was unsuited for night missions, being surrounded by mountains.

In connection with Saidor/Sio, a "minor" campaign was fought in the Ramu valley (98/124). The Allied established an important air base at Gusap (see http://www.pacificwrecks.com/airfields/png/gusap/index.html) and started but abandoned (no longer demed necessary) other potential sites (Dumpu, Kaipit). The hex should be a dot base with airbase potential.

In this context, I have stumbled accross an interesting paper about "Some logistical challenges for the Japanese in the New Guinea campaign, 1942-1945"

Moving South - Morobe (99/128) and Tufi (100/130) served as advance PT boats bases for barge busting missions against Buna and Salamaua/Lae and as refuling stations for small craft (landing craft, coastal vessels). They should be beach dots in the game (maybe even with port potential of 1). Tufi could also "simulate" Oro Bay which is in the Buna hex but served the Allies as supply base for the attack on Buna.
On a sidenote - the USNR Masayas (Hyperwar site and others call her "Masaya"), one of the four-stackers-converted-into-banana-boats which are in DaBigBabes as Teapa-class- was sunk near Oro Bay by Japanese bombers while carrying the advance party to establish a PT boat base at a place called Douglas Harbor north of Buna. After its loss, it was decided to establish the base at Morobe - 40 miles closer to Lae and better suited as PT base.

Staying in PNG - Kokoda (99/130) had a small pre-war airfield. It wasn't used by the Japanese (exept for supply air drops), but when recaptured by the Allies, was used by C-47s for resupply missions. I think it would be fair to include this airfield (as air base size 1/0), since the Allies cannot profit from Dobadura airfields (which as you know played a major role in the capture of the Buna area) until Buna has been recaptured (Buna/Dobadura being in thew same hex).

Switching to the Solomons. In the New Georgia archipel, the Allies first established small bases around Munda before moving in for the kill. Rendova and Rice Anchorage/Bairoko Harbour are in the same hex than Munda, but the hex to the south should have a beach dot and a potential base size (1 me think) for air and port in order to simulate Segi Point airfield, Viru Harbour and Wickham Anchorage - used for fighter support, logistics and PT boat bases.

P.S.: Stuff like the above is no the only thing in my posts which "gets Don Bowen aroused" - also see below

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 9/23/2010 9:02:00 AM >

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 238
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/23/2010 11:45:54 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
I notice that the MAG's are pulling their commanders from a list of generals rather than colonels, however that works.

IRL, they were colonels, as shown in the task organization and command lists in the History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations in World War II.

My dad's look at the elephant came on Guadalcanal, and in the Solomon's on the staff of MAG 14, where his boss was a Lt. Col. Cooley.

I don't really know what the big impact would be. Maybe not as much opportunity to micro-manage since there aren't many USMC generals. Few of them have any air skill to speak of, if that means anything. Given Marine air doctrine, I would think that they were at least good administrators, and more than a little aggressive, whatever air skill means for them.



Another wierd one is Marine Generals were very fungible. Roy Geiger commanded 1st MAW (as a 1 star), then the Cactus Air Force (as a 2 star), and then the 1st Phib Corps (as a 3 star). Maybe we should just give all Marine leaders a 90 - 90 - 90 rating, just to be safe (except if there was an Arty rating, we would have to give Pedro a 130 for that)


There's the game, and then there was real life -- guys like Geiger. Came in as enlisted man, did sea duty, the Caribbean, China, volunteered for aviation, was part of putting together close air support in Haiti, got into officering somehow . . .

They're all riflemen. So, I like your hypothetical rating.




And Geiger goes into the history books as the only Marine (only non- US Army General for that matter) to command a US Army -- the 10th Army, on Okinawa, after Buckner's death.

Default 90-90-90, eh? No bias there.

In AE you will note a deliberate bias -- virtually across the board, Marine Generals have been given higher aggressiveness ratings than their Army counterparts. And Horse Marine Chesty Puller is the highest-rated US small unit leader in the game.

As an Army guy, that might have given me some heartburn. But as a cavalryman, I have to give props to anyone on a horse . . .



_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Central Blue)
Post #: 239
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 9/23/2010 1:37:04 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
the USNR Masayas (Hyperwar site and others call her "Masaya"), one of the four-stackers-converted-into-banana-boats which are in DaBigBabes as Teapa-class


It was Masaya, one of three old 4-stackers. And she was Army Water Transport Command, so the closest designation would be USAT. Even that is not quite right as she was configured for cargo carrying not troops. In Army records she is noted as "Bareboat Chartered".

Masaya was the ex-USS Dale. Other two were Matagalpa (ex USS Osborne) and Teapa (es USS Putnam).

As to the bases, I'm not the guy for adding new ones. If it was up to me, there'd be a base in every land hex! But there are a lot of issues with bases. An airfield at Kokoda, for instance, has been played with for years. Problem is that the game engine allows an airfield to be overbuilt by three levels. Lots of reasons for that but it does not allow a "just 1" airfield to be specified. And level 4 at Kokoda just ain't right.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.453