RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message


Don Bowen -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/16/2010 1:04:34 AM)


Here she is...

[image]local://upfiles/757/BF794E977F114EFA95EBE140CFD87935.jpg[/image]




Don Bowen -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/20/2010 5:03:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

Bit disappointed about the Battle Group 2s, as I think at least Agincourt and Barrosa might have made it, but I couldn't find anything about the causes for their delayed commissioning. It may not have been end-of-war slowdown, as one source mentions delays because of lacking equipment.



Best source I can find is Friedman's reference work from a couple of years ago. He indicates the planned commissioning for Group 2 was to begin in February/March, 1946. Doesn't look like they make it.




Venividivici10044 -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/20/2010 9:03:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Sounds wonderful. Do you need an assistant?

Doing a white water rafting trip on the Futaleufu, with Bio Bio Expeditions, out of Trukee, CA. Assistant animals, hot tub denizens, wine bar dwellers, and left paddles, are sorely needed. This is my third trip with these folks, and it is a whole different world.

Now, that does sorta bring to mind some of the opening day TO&Es. I have learned (by doing it) that in many circumstances, horses are better than vehicles for getting from here to there. Perhaps they aren’t so great in the attack mode, but maybe them as thought horses had a place on the modern battlefield weren’t quite as stupid as the puerile, late 20th century, wargamers thought.

There was places I could ride (on a good horse), that I couldn’t get through on a M113. Boy, I’m learning all about horses, all over again. And lovin it.



JWE,

Chile sounds like fun! I'll have to check into their website. EDIT - post looking at the website, I suspect I know of this group through a colleague. I think her "ex" is part of the business; if this is the company, she speaks very highly (Serious in my statement!) of them.

Stephen




JWE -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/22/2010 9:28:14 PM)

Moving from Ships to LCUs, we've done a lot of work on Marine and Army LCU TO&Es, without (hopefully) doing violence to the OOB. Concept was to have troop count be as close to actuals as possible (to conform to troop count limitations on small islands), while being able to load into an historical lift group; a Regt into a TransDiv, a Div into a TransRon. Believe we have been successful.

We have an Army Inf Div that now has a troop count of 14400 and loads 10900 Troop/9500 Cargo. An Army Inf Rgt that has troop count 3119 and loads 3355 troop/879 Cargo. Just for comparison, a D-MarDiv now has troop count of 15871 and loads 12759 Troop/8420 Cargo. This looks rather good and loads as anticipated. This is down quite a bit from the stock 5000 man regiments and 22000 man divisions, without significantly impacting relative AV.

Lots of small changes, with respect to the relative position of Devices within the stack, have been made to conform a trifle better with the game code's selection routines for things like Arty.

Have a hard stake in the ground for US LCUs. Now to work on Japan.




Whisper -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/22/2010 10:13:33 PM)

Ooh Rah! At last, something we can use. Timeline, Jwe?




Kitakami -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/22/2010 11:38:08 PM)

Keep up the good work... we are all rooting for you :)




JWE -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/22/2010 11:52:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Whisper
Ooh Rah! At last, something we can use. Timeline, Jwe?

You guys are going to get to play with the beta long before the Canadians or the Belgians see the release. So ... patience, bro.




Mac Linehan -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/23/2010 6:51:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Whisper

Ooh Rah! At last, something we can use. Timeline, Jwe?


Must concur - much anticipation over this wonderful mod....

Thank you to the Team for all the good work.

Mac




Mac Linehan -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/23/2010 6:57:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Whisper
Ooh Rah! At last, something we can use. Timeline, Jwe?

You guys are going to get to play with the beta long before the Canadians or the Belgians see the release. So ... patience, bro.


JWE -

Really am excited (as are the rest of the fans!!)

Am currently playing Da Babes Lite, while studying a number of AAR's to help me get it together; particularly Mike Soli's School of Advanced Economic Planning (always so much to learn!). There is much I would like to change with a restart, but that will wait until the Beta comes out.

Mac




Buck Beach -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/23/2010 7:57:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Whisper
Ooh Rah! At last, something we can use. Timeline, Jwe?

You guys are going to get to play with the beta long before the Canadians or the Belgians see the release. So ... patience, bro.




JWE -

Really am excited (as are the rest of the fans!!)

Am currently playing Da Babes Lite, while studying a number of AAR's to help me get it together; particularly Mike Soli's School of Advanced Economic Planning (always so much to learn!). There is much I would like to change with a restart, but that will wait until the Beta comes out.

Mac


Help me out here JWE, what is Mike Soli's "School of Advanced Economic Planning"? Might of missed it but don't want to miss out, I also need all the help I can get.

I love hearing about your progress with the Da Biggy, even though I will never be able to enjoy the fruits of all your (collective) labors. I still am looking forward to seeing what I can apply from it to Da Lite on the Allied side and still play against the AI.




Mac Linehan -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/23/2010 10:16:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Whisper
Ooh Rah! At last, something we can use. Timeline, Jwe?

You guys are going to get to play with the beta long before the Canadians or the Belgians see the release. So ... patience, bro.




JWE -

Really am excited (as are the rest of the fans!!)

Am currently playing Da Babes Lite, while studying a number of AAR's to help me get it together; particularly Mike Soli's School of Advanced Economic Planning (always so much to learn!). There is much I would like to change with a restart, but that will wait until the Beta comes out.

Mac


Help me out here JWE, what is Mike Soli's "School of Advanced Economic Planning"? Might of missed it but don't want to miss out, I also need all the help I can get.

I love hearing about your progress with the Da Biggy, even though I will never be able to enjoy the fruits of all your (collective) labors. I still am looking forward to seeing what I can apply from it to Da Lite on the Allied side and still play against the AI.



Hi, Buck!

The "Mike Solli's School of Advanced Economic Planning" is in reference to the "Here We Go Again, TC464 (A) vs Mike (J) AAR. Mike is a detailed kind of guy (me too!), and is sharing his thoughts about running the Japanese Economy (in general) and how he manages Resource and Oil shipping to the Home Islands (in particular) in the AAR.

There is so much information to be had from numerous excellent AAR's (I am following several), Mike's resource / oil shipping tables have really helped me get a handle on supplying and maintaining the Japanese War Economy.

Many Moons Ago, El Cid made the comment that managing Logistics was the key to winning or just surviving (as the Japanese) in the Game, with Combat being the next step but very much dependent on Logistics.

Mac





JWE -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/23/2010 10:24:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Help me out here JWE, what is Mike Soli's "School of Advanced Economic Planning"? Might of missed it but don't want to miss out, I also need all the help I can get.

Don't know. Something that Bro Mike developed, that sounds really sweet. Should ask him.
quote:

I love hearing about your progress with the Da Biggy, even though I will never be able to enjoy the fruits of all your (collective) labors. I still am looking forward to seeing what I can apply from it to Da Lite on the Allied side and still play against the AI.

Thank you for that. Unfortunately, nothing will port over. All the TO&Es are different, all the OOBs are in different slots, everything is so different, it will not be possible to use it with the AI. It's a PBEM kinda mod, actually, it's a CPX kinda mod. It's crunchy and gnarly and appeals to professionals or really hard core grogs. Don't think DaBigBabes is playable against a computer opponent, unless you spend a lot of time in H2H mode smiling and dialing the different ops constraints.




Mac Linehan -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/24/2010 12:15:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Help me out here JWE, what is Mike Soli's "School of Advanced Economic Planning"? Might of missed it but don't want to miss out, I also need all the help I can get.

Don't know. Something that Bro Mike developed, that sounds really sweet. Should ask him.
quote:

I love hearing about your progress with the Da Biggy, even though I will never be able to enjoy the fruits of all your (collective) labors. I still am looking forward to seeing what I can apply from it to Da Lite on the Allied side and still play against the AI.

Thank you for that. Unfortunately, nothing will port over. All the TO&Es are different, all the OOBs are in different slots, everything is so different, it will not be possible to use it with the AI. It's a PBEM kinda mod, actually, it's a CPX kinda mod. It's crunchy and gnarly and appeals to professionals or really hard core grogs (YES! YES! ME! <and many others - you know who you are!>. Don't think DaBigBabes is playable against a computer opponent, unless you spend a lot of time in H2H mode smiling and dialing the different ops constraints.


JWE -

I think I am beginning to salivate (and get the shakes)........

Respectfully, and (Im)patiently,

Mac




oldman45 -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/24/2010 7:19:26 AM)

I want to do this, but I think because of all the changes it would make excellent team play.




JWE -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/24/2010 7:13:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45
I want to do this, but I think because of all the changes it would make excellent team play.

Well, DaBigBabes was originally thought of as being a nice PBEM scenario, with lots of fun stuff going on, just like CHS. But it's turned out to be 'alive' and it's evolving; like the eggplant that ate Chicago. Our players/testers are messing with it in a CPX environment, and providing a ton of feedback. This little puppy has gone to places that I never expected. Given the development environment, DaBigBabes will be natively adapted for Team/CPX play. I also think Solo/H2H will work just fine so long as auto-run runs for limited periods.

For solo play, with the computer as an opponent, you will have to set 'hardness' on normal (to avoid the cheats) and run in H2H mode. Will want to periodically swap sides in order to herd the cats in the right direction. Only time and inclination will say what an adequate periodicity is. But can be (and has been) done quite satisfactorily.

Jeez, We may have to write a manual for the beast. Oh, groin!




Central Blue -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/26/2010 3:30:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Jeez, We may have to write a manual for the beast. Oh, groin!


hey JWE, the manuals have already been written. [:)] Here is one of many at ibiblio: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/ref/Amphibious/index.html#contents

quote:

Fleet Marine Force, Pacific
10 September 1944
This Manual is Published for the
Information and Guidance of All
Concerned.


Printed by 6 Base Depot Reproduction Section

Staff Officer's Field Manual
for
Amphibious Operations


I think all of the ardent fans are pretty well aware of where you are going with lions, cubs, acorns, OOB and TOE mods, etc. For the rest getting on board, lots of other good stuff on Pacific logistics at Ibiblio for free -- at least for the AFB's in the mix.




oldman45 -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/26/2010 5:21:39 AM)

Thanks JWE, with the scope/scale changing so much, would something like this work best with 3 or more players on a side? Is that even possible with PBEM?




JWE -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/27/2010 8:07:18 PM)

Ok, well we are into the short strokes, now for the US. Things are looking pretty good. We should have something beta-ish (just for the US, you understand) for ya’ll to look at in a couple days. For obvious reasons, neither the beta nor the errata will be posted. Once it’s done we’ll let ya know and those of you we trust (and you and I both know who you are) can shoot me a note and get a copy for review, comment, or whatever.

There’s a ton of graininess in the base thingy. We have gobs of new devices, with new specs, and a ton of new Units. The units are defined in terms of functionality and are differentiated by service; they include:
Army Boat & Shore Eng Rgts, Boat & Shore Eng Bns, Port Service Bns, Army AmphTrac Bns, Army AmphTank Bns, Navy Seabee Bns, ‘Special’ Seabee Bns, Navy Port Maint Bns, Navy Air Maint Bns, Fleet Adv Bases (Lions), Port Adv Bases (Cubs), Air Adv Bases (Acorns),, all in accord with what was, and when it appeared.

Basically got rid of all Army and Navy Base Forces, and replaced them with their various battalion components which you will have to thoughtfully collect and send to wherever you want capability.

Last thing we have to do is replace the AAF base forces with notional AAF Base Groups and Base Squadrons. Then we have to herd the HQ cats: there’s neither reason nor support for 5th AF (for example) to have any AirSup capability to extend throughout its range. It was a collection of Generals and staff officers, not techs. HQs do global things, a Base Sqdn gets its hands dirty.

The paradigms are tucking in together, rather well. It’s a witch, because there’s 9 or more degrees of freedom for all this stuff. But we think we got it.




Mac Linehan -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/28/2010 6:05:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Ok, well we are into the short strokes, now for the US. Things are looking pretty good. We should have something beta-ish (just for the US, you understand) for ya’ll to look at in a couple days. For obvious reasons, neither the beta nor the errata will be posted. Once it’s done we’ll let ya know and those of you we trust (and you and I both know who you are) can shoot me a note and get a copy for review, comment, or whatever.

There’s a ton of graininess in the base thingy. We have gobs of new devices, with new specs, and a ton of new Units. The units are defined in terms of functionality and are differentiated by service; they include:
Army Boat & Shore Eng Rgts, Boat & Shore Eng Bns, Port Service Bns, Army AmphTrac Bns, Army AmphTank Bns, Navy Seabee Bns, ‘Special’ Seabee Bns, Navy Port Maint Bns, Navy Air Maint Bns, Fleet Adv Bases (Lions), Port Adv Bases (Cubs), Air Adv Bases (Acorns),, all in accord with what was, and when it appeared.

Basically got rid of all Army and Navy Base Forces, and replaced them with their various battalion components which you will have to thoughtfully collect and send to wherever you want capability.

Last thing we have to do is replace the AAF base forces with notional AAF Base Groups and Base Squadrons. Then we have to herd the HQ cats: there’s neither reason nor support for 5th AF (for example) to have any AirSup capability to extend throughout its range. It was a collection of Generals and staff officers, not techs. HQs do global things, a Base Sqdn gets its hands dirty.

The paradigms are tucking in together, rather well. It’s a witch, because there’s 9 or more degrees of freedom for all this stuff. But we think we got it.




JWE -

This is very exciting! I won't be able to play until next Friday, so I am willing to give the "Babes" Team a few extra days to do what they must do <slow grin...>

A sincere Thank You for your work (I know it will be good!) and taking the time to give us an update!

Sat thinking for a moment after posting the above. My current Babes Lite game is on day two (8 Dec 1941). I have spent the last five days (Spring Break) rereading the rules, Forums (especially AAR's) and focusing on putting it all together - from organizing resource convoys and naval ship conversions to identifying the LCUs, shipping and warships involved in the next phase of expansion. There is still more to do before I hit the "end turn" button. What has become apparent, upon reflection of JWE's comments above, is that the commitment of time that I (and many other players) put into prepping the game for the first few turns - that seems to take forever - really is small potatoes when compared to the immense amount of time and effort required to enact a detailed modification (affecting hundreds and hundreds of units) thru the editor. Not to mention time spent on research before it all starts. AE is First Class in its own right; the various Mods have made it even better. I am absolutely confident that Da Big Babes will be another quantum leap forward. Thank You, Thank You , to all of you for the quality work on a labor of love (without any recompense except recognition!) that will enhance our enjoyment of AE.

Mac




Kitakami -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/28/2010 9:08:24 PM)

+1 [:)]




oldman45 -> RE: Royal Navy Historians – help needed. (3/28/2010 10:14:43 PM)

One day, in the distant future, it would be a treat to have Da big Babes capable of doing Allies against the AI. Oh to dream ;) Echoing the other comments, thanks to all those involved.




Zebedee -> RE: Release (6/17/2010 7:13:10 AM)

Been tracking from afar.

Muchos gracias for including AI play possibilities to Ensign with time to spare.

Appreciated is the work you guys have put in and continue to put in above and beyond any call of duty (calls of nature being a different cauldron of catfish of course).

Looking forward to investigating culmination impact of shorter rubber bands and flotation capabilities of new ships.

Guessing Allied AI is a project in and of itself. If many hand make light work, and the broth is not getting overstirred, I can lift small bricks over short distances should future ventures be planned.




vettim89 -> Nav Support Question (6/26/2010 6:42:53 AM)

JWE,

You made the statement that NavSup as whole for both sides is overrepresented in stock and thus reduced in DBB. From your earlier discussion you mentioned that some NavSup is actually represented in the Port Expansion routine of the game. If I understand this correctly, Port Expansion + on map NavSup = total amount of NavSup available to both sides. It is a cornerstone premise of DBB that the amount of those two components is overexagerated when compared to RL

My first question is: have Port SPS values been adjusted in DBB at all? Conversely was it decided to only change the NavSup in units as that is obviously more quantifiable and easier to distrubute? I am just wondering what the overall approach to this was especially on how it relates to Port SPS.

Personally, I might advocate having more NavSup in units but nearly eliminating Port expansion as an option in all but those ports that were well developed pre-war. The rest of the "expansion would have to come from placement of large service units at relevant bases. This would have a couple of effects, the first being that there would be a little more freedom as the players would not be necessarily tied to historically used ports. The second would be that valuable facilities that werenot used by either side can be uised in AE if a side chooses to reinforce through a different routre or base system

Just wondering how this was settled? ANd how do you feel about its running to this point.

Authour's note: written after the Ambien so if its incoherant - not my fault




JWE -> RE: Nav Support Question (6/26/2010 8:30:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89
Authour's note: written after the Ambien so if its incoherant - not my fault

Hello Vettim89, no worries, I take Paxil. – good question. Answer has a lot to do with that thing I keep talking about; i.e., how different game aspects play together. There’s three things going on: Engineers, Port Size, and NavSup. Since the differences are fundamental to DBB, I’m going to have to get detailed, so please bear with me.

Traditional NavSup can do 3 things; 1- help unload, 2- help rearm, 3- help repair. Port Size can also do 3 things; 1- help unload, 2- help rearm, 3- help repair. When these are added together, one can turn any decent port into San Diego, or Maizuru. Under the stock system, almost every single unit had enough engineer capability to allow it to build Noumea into Mare Island. This allowed both sides to establish 30 or 40 decent frontline Port locations, whereas the reality was 8 to 12.

The Engineer tweaks, effectively nerf the construction units such that they don’t count for assault value, or fort reduction. Other tweaks nerf them further such that 27 squads might work more like 9. The point of all this is to give a job of work to all the construction Eng Bns out there (think Seabees or IJN Constr Rgts). They cannot AV or reduce forts, just build (Seabees can’t reduce forts, but they can AV – although you won’t want them to).

So Ports will build up more slowly, and one will have to commit construction units to that end. Clearly a Seabee Bn will do the deed way faster than a Japanese Rgt of ‘termites’.

Port Size; nothing really changes here. The issue with Port Size is that it grows so quickly, by highly over-competent engineer units. Slow that down, and Port Size begins to look reasonable. The real point is making Port Size the ultimate arbiter of repair/rearm; some few units can really help, but they are far and few between.

The NavSup tweaks aggregate NavSup squads into a limited number of units that can be deployed at a Port of choice (presumably a good one). The problem with NavSup is that it can do so many different things. However, the actual number of torpedo shops and ship repair stations was extremely limited (for both sides).

NavSup is broken into two areas: traditional NavSup (extremely limited), and Shore Party NavSup. Shore Party units carry out the load/unload assistance functions of traditional NavSup, but can’t do anything else. The vast majority of stock NavSup has been redefined in terms of SP units, and the Japanese OOB has been greatly expanded in this regard.

So the traditional NavSup functions have been limited to a realistic few units (mobile and deployable), while the stevedore/amphib support functions have been expanded at the Bn level (smaller numbers of effective squads).

Needed to keep a serious poopload of data in mind, for all 3 areas, so there’s going to be some blivets, but we’ve been dialing with this paradigm for a year and nothing has raised it’s ugly head so far.

Hope this makes sense. John




oldman45 -> RE: Nav Support Question (6/26/2010 9:54:39 PM)

That was a brilliant explanation, thanks JWE!!




Page: <<   < prev  11 12 13 14 [15]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.5625