Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Thank you guys.
These stacking limits seem really interesting...but also very problematic cause the whole strategy we've learnt under the old maps must be changed completely!

So in a rough terrain you basically simply has to put 50k friendly troops in an hex to practically blockade any further enemy advance? cause i see it very difficult to dislodge a stiff enemy division if you are forced to always play a 1to1 game...am i right?

quote:



And what about the AA differencies? What the DBB has changed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ItsAMadhouse

Realistic r&d on means you cannot change factories that are producing research over to production of actual aircraft that are available (or go from production of available aircraft to r&d.)

Realistic r&d off means you can convert any aircraft factory to any other aircraft factory whether or not it's a plane under research or in production.

Joe

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Thank you guys.
These stacking limits seem really interesting...but also very problematic cause the whole strategy we've learnt under the old maps must be changed completely!

So in a rough terrain you basically simply has to put 50k friendly troops in an hex to practically blockade any further enemy advance? cause i see it very difficult to dislodge a stiff enemy division if you are forced to always play a 1to1 game...am i right?

Which creates a game of maneuver with many smaller stacks instead of telephone poles.

quote:



And what about the AA differencies? What the DBB has changed?

AA is more potent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy



Thanks! I'm really tempted....studied the new map a bit and looks great!

Is the extended map with stacking limits usable also with stock scenarios? I mean: i'm i forced to use DBB scenarios if i wannahave the stacking limits?

Thx again

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Thank you guys.
These stacking limits seem really interesting...but also very problematic cause the whole strategy we've learnt under the old maps must be changed completely!

So in a rough terrain you basically simply has to put 50k friendly troops in an hex to practically blockade any further enemy advance? cause i see it very difficult to dislodge a stiff enemy division if you are forced to always play a 1to1 game...am i right?

Which creates a game of maneuver with many smaller stacks instead of telephone poles.

quote:



And what about the AA differencies? What the DBB has changed?

AA is more potent.

Thanks! I'm really tempted....studied the new map a bit and looks great!

Is the extended map with stacking limits usable also with stock scenarios? I mean: i'm i forced to use DBB scenarios if i wannahave the stacking limits?

Thx again

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

GJ,

Real men use stacking limits and play Babes.

Seriously, stacking limits are great and all of the changes in Babes are for the better. There are so many its hard to even summarize in a few sentences.

And, the Babes device type changes have been applied to the stock scenarios (I think someone mentioned above how to find those), so you can get those too if you like. I prefer full blown Babes with the reduced cargo load (28-C) with stacking limits and the extended map. Some folks have put together variants on that one as well if you like. I think one is called "RA" and it might be closer to scenario 2 or maybe call it a re-done scenario 2. Others would know more about it than I.

Good luck!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Suggestion - Decide now that you will take the plunge to try of DBB Scenario 30. Find an opponent that is also new to DBB mods. Play a short game to learn from till 1 March 42. Do a re-start with that same person (or another) to play a complete game. Send your turn to another player (I will volunteer or get someone even better like Damian) on the 10th, 20th, and 30th of each month to review your economy mainly and offer feedback here and on any tactical/strategic issues you want feedback on (or do a short AAR).

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

GJ,

Real men use stacking limits and play Babes.

Seriously, stacking limits are great and all of the changes in Babes are for the better. There are so many its hard to even summarize in a few sentences.

And, the Babes device type changes have been applied to the stock scenarios (I think someone mentioned above how to find those), so you can get those too if you like. I prefer full blown Babes with the reduced cargo load (28-C) with stacking limits and the extended map. Some folks have put together variants on that one as well if you like. I think one is called "RA" and it might be closer to scenario 2 or maybe call it a re-done scenario 2. Others would know more about it than I.

Good luck!

Thanks mate! I'm really tempted...i wanna call myself a "real man" you know ...but the effects of all those changes you mentioned remain so "foggy" and blured in my mind that i really feel that's too much to handle for my first jap game... however i've looked deeply around the forum and, so far, i've leanrt that (correct me if i'm wrong please):

1- ASW routines have been rewritten... i don't understand what the effects will be (a part from the nerfing of the ridicoulus ASW abilities of the dreaded E class!)
2- AA has been powered. Which means a lot more japanese bombers will go exploding, even without massing 20 AA units in a single hex (as i've done at Karachi against Rader). Probably it will also mean a lot more 4Es damaged on their attacking trips.
3- Many more ship classes to puzzle and confuse the little minds of the unexperienced japanese hairy-lover player
4- Stacking limits (now i perfectly understood what that means): no steamrolling anywhere.
5- Halved the aviation support available alla round the map
6- units are broken down (especially the base units) into several more sub-units (more micro-managing)

Is that all?

Overall i gotta say that i really love these changes! every single one of them is for sure a leap forward towards a better game.
My real concern is that i feel that all these changes may be too much for my first japanese game...
Unconsciously my goal with this game was to follow the footsteps of my master (Rader), even if not bringing the game to those excesses (sp!?) (say the crazy R&D stuff, the 3000 A/C battles, etc etc).... but DBB seems (to my unexperienced view) to foce you to remain on a more historical course of events (no India invasion so to say)

Am i that wrong?

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

GJ,

Real men use stacking limits and play Babes.

Seriously, stacking limits are great and all of the changes in Babes are for the better. There are so many its hard to even summarize in a few sentences.

And, the Babes device type changes have been applied to the stock scenarios (I think someone mentioned above how to find those), so you can get those too if you like. I prefer full blown Babes with the reduced cargo load (28-C) with stacking limits and the extended map. Some folks have put together variants on that one as well if you like. I think one is called "RA" and it might be closer to scenario 2 or maybe call it a re-done scenario 2. Others would know more about it than I.

Good luck!

Thanks mate! I'm really tempted...i wanna call myself a "real man" you know ...but the effects of all those changes you mentioned remain so "foggy" and blured in my mind that i really feel that's too much to handle for my first jap game... however i've looked deeply around the forum and, so far, i've leanrt that (correct me if i'm wrong please):

1- ASW routines have been rewritten... i don't understand what the effects will be (a part from the nerfing of the ridicoulus ASW abilities of the dreaded E class!)
2- AA has been powered. Which means a lot more japanese bombers will go exploding, even without massing 20 AA units in a single hex (as i've done at Karachi against Rader). Probably it will also mean a lot more 4Es damaged on their attacking trips.
3- Many more ship classes to puzzle and confuse the little minds of the unexperienced japanese hairy-lover player
4- Stacking limits (now i perfectly understood what that means): no steamrolling anywhere.
5- Halved the aviation support available alla round the map
6- units are broken down (especially the base units) into several more sub-units (more micro-managing)

Is that all?

Overall i gotta say that i really love these changes! every single one of them is for sure a leap forward towards a better game.
My real concern is that i feel that all these changes may be too much for my first japanese game...
Unconsciously my goal with this game was to follow the footsteps of my master (Rader), even if not bringing the game to those excesses (sp!?) (say the crazy R&D stuff, the 3000 A/C battles, etc etc).... but DBB seems (to my unexperienced view) to foce you to remain on a more historical course of events (no India invasion so to say)

Am i that wrong?

Reduction in bombing effect on land targets. Ship targets get a different load-out.

Honestly, finding the Babes thread and cruising through it is probably best. Maybe there is a summary on the Babes web site?

It's way more better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adsoul64

GJ you're planning to play vs AI or PBEM? I could be wrong (never played DBB) but it seems to me DBB is not well suited to AI games (at least not games including the Extended map that AI cannot handle properly).

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

If needed (unable to find somebody else), I could play the Allies for the first few months if you found someone else to be your "Economics Minister." I would offer feedback game wise and then you could find a long term opponent for a campaign game. I have 3 PBEM games on going, but could do a short term one like this. There is an art to doing the first turn for Japan that we can get into later. It depends on how historic your campaign game will end up being (non-historic 1st turn or not).

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
Since the first Pbem back 1,5 year ago (and my only one so far) i haven't played AI anymore....and i won't play against the AI anymore in my whole life

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

I may be an idiot (probably i am) but cannot find the proper thread.... yes, i've used the search function...no joy...i've gone back to several pages of the mod forum....no joy ...

Different load-out for ship targets? tghat sounds interesting

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

I may be an idiot (probably i am) but cannot find the proper thread.... yes, i've used the search function...no joy...i've gone back to several pages of the mod forum....no joy ...

Different load-out for ship targets? tghat sounds interesting

The Babes thread(s) might be way far back now. Do cruise around the Babes' web site:

https://sites.google.com/site/dababeswitpae/

Babes uses exactly the same program (AE) as the other scenarios. However, during the course of various updates and the recent round of Betas there were more capabilities added to the code. Stacking levels (for all hexes, not just island bases) was one of them. Newer scenarios (or map data files in the case of stacking limits) can take advantage of them, but obviously the original scenario files were created long before those enhancements existed.

Note that some of them are not even represented in the scenario editor, and have to be done by editing CSV files exported from the scenario files. The alternate load out for planes is an example. I forget exactly, but I think they have 3 or four in total they can specify and - if they are present - the code will use them as appropriate. If they are not present, then the code does the same as it always did before.

Ship-board AA is another example. The problem used to be that dual-purpose guns caused problems because the surface combat and AA combat routines used the same data fields for the device but each had very different code. Make the ammo for AA be correct and there was way too much for surface combat. Make the ammo be correct for surface combat and there wasn't enough for AA. Make the effect be correct for AA and it was way too much for surface combat. Make the effect be correct for surface combat and it wasn't enough for AA. So, they now (optionally, can) have different fields for a dual purpose gun - one set for AA and one set for surface combat.

For ASW they did not change the code at all AFAIK. What they did was look at how things were working, and then edited the devices (ASW weapons) on the ships so the results come out right given the way the code works. When you play Babes or something based on it, you are getting more than some enhancements. You are getting the benefit of some serious feedback loops begetting refinements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

GJ - You might want to print this out to help understand these changes.


Engineers:
The “name” of a device does not matter, only the device data matters. Any Eng unit can always build, but if it has Anti-Armor <1, it cannot reduce forts. If it has Anti-Soft <9, it cannot AV. If it is “named” Construction or Labor Eng, but is a Type = 23 (squad), it will not build. If it also has a-a <1, and a-s <9, it won’t do anything but eat (i.e., nothing but ‘bodies’). So there is a matrix of different Eng squads that represent a mix of abilities; build stuff, reduce forts, able to AV, some of the above, none of the above. DaBigBabes uses this matrix (according to our appreciation as to how it falls out) to help limit in-game tempo, by limiting in-game infrastructure.

Shore Party:
Shore Party is a sub-set of Nav Sup. Shore Party devices assist in loading/unloading but do not assist in repairing or rearming. Repair/rearm bases were very far and few between, for both sides, and thus with BigBabes, but both sides recognized an imperative for stevedoring and non-integral lift capability. Thus Shore Partys and a skoosh of code that lets them give an unload bonus to TFs. A Shore Party switch may be set for a Vehicle, such as an LVT-2 Amph Trac; It may be set for a Type = 24 Eng squad, like USA Port Srvc Sq, in which case it may also help build; It may be set for a Type = 23 Squad, like USA Amph Sup Sq.

Check the editor often, and become familiar with all the different kinds of units available. For example:

USMC Pioneer Sq – Squad type – No Build, Yes AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Constr Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, Yes AV, No Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Spec Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Base Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USA Port Svc Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USA Amph Sup Sq – Squad type – No Build, Yes AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts

IJA Shipping Eng Sq – Squad type – No Build, No AV, No Reduce Forts, Yes Shore Party, LC = 17
IJA Cmbt Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, Yes AV, Yes Reduce Forts, No Shore Party, LC = 17
IJA Const Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, No Reduce Forts, No Shore Party, LC = 17
IJA Const Labor Sq – Squad type – No Build, No AV, No Reduce Forts, No Shore Party, LC = 20
IJN Const Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, No Reduce Forts, No Shore Party, LC = 17
IJN Const Labor Sq – Squad type – No Build, No AV, No Reduce Forts, No Shore Party, LC = 20

So IJ Const Labor doesn’t 'do' anything and, what’s more, has a larger load cost. This represents the large manual labor component (Chinese/Korean) that results in 1000 man Eng Bns/Rgts without giving much additional capability. Typical IJA Const Bns/Rgts have 32 Const squads (590 ‘men’, 1088 total with the support, etc.), but 16 squads are Const Eng, while 16 are Const Labor. It's a way to have 32 squad (1000 man) Bns/Rgts with half the capability of a corresponding 32 squad Allied unit.

Even though many squad devices don’t ‘do’ anything (and many Eng devices can’t assault), they are still marginally useful (apart from the Eng devices being able to build). Anti-Soft = 8 (typically) so these units may still ‘shoot’ during the pre-assault fire phase. They ‘shoot’ better than the default firepower of a 251 Eng or 252 Sup device, so that’s something.

Different load costs also allow Const Bns/Rgts to be tailored as to troop count and, therefore, loadability and troop population on atolls and small islands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

If John III can play as Japan anybody can.  All he does is click a couple of buttons, invade Hawaii or Australia, and watch his Allied opponents perspire.  I've always gotten the feeling that running the Japanese economy can't be very challenging if he does it...

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

But is the whole R&D necessary? as far as i understood it, even if you don't research any future plane, you are gonna get it anyway when the official date arrives...is that true?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

The air production is a whole different matter... i read many many threads about it...and everybody seems to have a different (and strong!) opinion about what is best to produce and what is best to R&D....and i'm puzzled!

From my experience against Rader, it seems that it's better to concentrate on the Helens as the only Army Bomber (at least till the Peggy arrives), usefull also for ASW duties, skipping the Sallies and everything else (Lily, Sonia, Ann, Mary etc...);

quote:


for what concerns IJAAF fighters, the Tojo and the Oscar seem the only valuable assets (so KI-61 skipped). Still dubious about the Nick....it never impressed me when i played agaist Rader and it sucks 2 engines... what do you think?

quote:


For the Navy i'm still dubious about the A6M3 and its variants.... is it really worth R&Ding it? Isn't it better to stick with the A6M2 untill the A6M5 comes online? For what concerns navy bombers i think i'll keep the Betty untill the Frances comes available.

quote:


Still don't know if it's worth to R&D the navy carrier bombers (Judy etc) and torpedo bombers... when it comes to CV vs CV i think it doesn't really matter how fast you go...only numbers count imho.

quote:


Long term R&D, K-84 and N1K2 obviously, while i think i'll skip the Jack that never really impressed me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

The air production is a whole different matter... i read many many threads about it...and everybody seems to have a different (and strong!) opinion about what is best to produce and what is best to R&D....and i'm puzzled!

From my experience against Rader, it seems that it's better to concentrate on the Helens as the only Army Bomber (at least till the Peggy arrives), usefull also for ASW duties, skipping the Sallies and everything else (Lily, Sonia, Ann, Mary etc...);

There is a chart with upgrade paths it would be good for you to look at, made by Hanzberger. It's on several threads.

You have to use the Sallys at first, until the Helen IIa arrives. Around July or August depending on what research you assign to it. The Helen I is not any better than Sallys. You research it though to let the RND factories change over to the Helen IIa at no cost once it is available in April 42. You can build some if you want, and let the factory upgrade when the IIa comes along. It depends on how many bombers you're using in the beginning.

You have a big Lily factory working when you start the game. My view is to use it for a month or three. Then change it to something you want more, like Sallys or Oscar Ic. Why not have a slightly better bomber than any of the 1Es for the first few months? It carries 4 100kg bombs which works well against fields and troops in China especially. Much better than the 1 250kg bombs of the Ann and Mary, and slightly better than the 4 50kg of the Sonia. More bombs more hits.

Some groups upgrade to it without paying PPs as well, while most of the 1E groups only upgrade to a 2E with a charge of 75 PPs. (rader didn't have to worry about this because it wasn't in the patch you guys were playing then).

quote:


for what concerns IJAAF fighters, the Tojo and the Oscar seem the only valuable assets (so KI-61 skipped). Still dubious about the Nick....it never impressed me when i played agaist Rader and it sucks 2 engines... what do you think?

Nicks can be useful, but mostly in areas behind the front lines where he can't send massive sweeps and escorts. If they take on the 4Es on their own they do well and are the only Japanese fighter with armor at this stage. Some also like the later 'C' model for the 2 x 250kg bombs it can carry.

quote:


For the Navy i'm still dubious about the A6M3 and its variants.... is it really worth R&Ding it? Isn't it better to stick with the A6M2 untill the A6M5 comes online? For what concerns navy bombers i think i'll keep the Betty untill the Frances comes available.

It's good to research both the A6M2-N 'Rufe' and the A6M3 as they can lead to the later paths and you can just push the factories forward undamaged without having to build them if you don't want to. Through the A6M3 path you can get to the A6M3a which is your main long range fighter for a good bit of the mid war. I built a few of the A6M3 (only for land groups as it's not CV capable) just because it's slightly better at higher altitude than the A6M2, and then converted all to the A6M3a. The A6M5 is not much better than A6M3a and has a shorter range. I'll still use it and the 3a for a good portion of 43. After that it probably doesn't matter, as the Zero line is eclipsed by the Hellcats and Corsairs, as you know well, and as you say, the numbers only will count.

The G3M3 version of the Nell gives 21/26 range, which can be useful. It will rarely attack past about 15 hexes, but I've had them go for targets at 20+ hexes once or twice. For attacking land or port targets though, this can be very useful.

quote:


Still don't know if it's worth to R&D the navy carrier bombers (Judy etc) and torpedo bombers... when it comes to CV vs CV i think it doesn't really matter how fast you go...only numbers count imho.

The Judy is VERY important! It carries a 500kg bomb instead of the 250kg bomb of the Val. That and the speed make up for the 3 service rating.

Also, the Grace for late war torpedo/dive-bomber is said to be a must, although I've not used it yet.

quote:


Long term R&D, K-84 and N1K2 obviously, while i think i'll skip the Jack that never really impressed me.

The navy A7M is pretty good, but comes late. The N1K line is meant to be your best bomber killer until some of the very late war planes come along.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

GJ,

Real men use stacking limits and play Babes.

Seriously, stacking limits are great and all of the changes in Babes are for the better. There are so many its hard to even summarize in a few sentences.

And, the Babes device type changes have been applied to the stock scenarios (I think someone mentioned above how to find those), so you can get those too if you like. I prefer full blown Babes with the reduced cargo load (28-C) with stacking limits and the extended map. Some folks have put together variants on that one as well if you like. I think one is called "RA" and it might be closer to scenario 2 or maybe call it a re-done scenario 2. Others would know more about it than I.

Good luck!