RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (Full Version)

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



Message

Don Bowen -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/8/2010 7:09:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
... They're taking away my USMC t-shirt for a week.


This would be a good week to take that IQ test.



Mac Linehan -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/9/2010 12:11:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn
Bit of a newb question but could someone briefly either point me in the right direction to read myself or give me a quick answer to what the various engineer types do? So far ive seen Construction engineers, construction labour, shipping engineers and engineers.

I'm enjoying the game i'm playing but need a better in depth understanding of the changes and building bases is kinda important!!

thanks

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


JWE -

This (and the whole thread) is most helpful. Have been using the editor to follow your unit matrix above - and (after mobilizing all three megs of RAM) it is beginning to make sense.


An Enlightened Mac



Central Blue -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/9/2010 5:55:03 AM)

I am curious about the assignment of New Zealand's available naval support squads to the Nadi, Palmerston, and Gisborne base forces. I can imagine why a scenario designer might limit the amount of naval support available to New Zealand, but it seems odd that they are limited to base forces assigned to less than important possible ports. It's not a big deal, I just walk them to where I need them.

I am a big fan of the choices made in the realignment of Allied restrictions in the last update. The arrival of Americal assets in Melbourne is just brilliant. Kudos to the Babes team for taking the suggestion from Buck Beach or the Old Man. I can't remember which of them made it.

I don't know if it was intended, but combining some of the broken down base forces in India result in some TOE's larger than standard. 1st Central, and 4th Northwest are two examples that come to mind. They are two units handy to have given the shortage of support and engineering in India at the start of the war, and for months thereafter.



traskott -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/9/2010 5:53:38 PM)

I have installed the last release and I have a (well, a bit [:o][:o] question ) : The LCUs called 54th Base Group, 22th Base Group, and so... are intented to be administrative linked to the same number'groups: I.E. The 22th Base Group with the 22th Bomber Group, and such...



JWE -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/9/2010 11:35:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: traskott
I have installed the last release and I have a (well, a bit [:o][:o] question ) : The LCUs called 54th Base Group, 22th Base Group, and so... are intented to be administrative linked to the same number'groups: I.E. The 22th Base Group with the 22th Bomber Group, and such...

They are not really linked. We had to call them something and there's no real record of the numeric designations of all the base groups, base squadrons, material squadrons ... and we had to make sure that the amount of base groups/squadrons were rationally related to the amount of groups/squadrons, so what the hey, give the Base Groups/Sqdns the same numbers as the Bomber/Fighter Groups/Sqdns. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.



traskott -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/10/2010 3:04:28 PM)

It's a good idea !!!

I'll use on this way.

Thank you !!!



JWE -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/10/2010 4:55:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
I am curious about the assignment of New Zealand's available naval support squads to the Nadi, Palmerston, and Gisborne base forces. I can imagine why a scenario designer might limit the amount of naval support available to New Zealand, but it seems odd that they are limited to base forces assigned to less than important possible ports. It's not a big deal, I just walk them to where I need them.

I don’t know why it was done that way. We leave the Land Team stuff pretty much alone for the non-US Allies, unless there’s good data to support a change. We just don’t know enough about those guys and must depend on folks like Andy, Kereguelen, Blackhorse, and you all, for input.
quote:

I am a big fan of the choices made in the realignment of Allied restrictions in the last update. The arrival of Americal assets in Melbourne is just brilliant. Kudos to the Babes team for taking the suggestion from Buck Beach or the Old Man. I can't remember which of them made it.

Thanks. Glad it’s working for you. We really do pay attention to ya’lls inputs.
quote:

I don't know if it was intended, but combining some of the broken down base forces in India result in some TOE's larger than standard. 1st Central, and 4th Northwest are two examples that come to mind. They are two units handy to have given the shortage of support and engineering in India at the start of the war, and for months thereafter.

Unintended, and frankly we weren’t paying the same attention to those “other” guys. All the India BF breakdowns were a bit strange. Fixed them up, and they should be a lot smoother in the next update. Matched up the capabilities of the RIAF BFs with the RAF BFs better. Called them RIAF BFs because in my simple mind there’s only one IAF – that’s the one that lets girls be fighter pilots.


[image]local://upfiles/17451/82C986EB99534AC4A83D8805A02B7640.jpg[/image]



witpqs -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/10/2010 5:13:25 PM)

What are your thoughts on timing for that update?



oldman45 -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/11/2010 12:35:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


[image]local://upfiles/17451/82C986EB99534AC4A83D8805A02B7640.jpg[/image]



Sure gives a new meaning to the phrase fighter pilot [;)]



stuman -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/11/2010 12:41:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


[image]local://upfiles/17451/82C986EB99534AC4A83D8805A02B7640.jpg[/image]



Sure gives a new meaning to the phrase fighter pilot [;)]


Hmm, probably the first time watching some Air Force folks walking away was actually fun [:)]



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/11/2010 7:01:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

I am a big fan of the choices made in the realignment of Allied restrictions in the last update. The arrival of Americal assets in Melbourne is just brilliant.


I do like most of the revamped OOB, but the appearance of units on the map outside the "country of origin" without the need to transport them to the destination base IMO does not feel right.

I understand that historically many units were created in the war zone by means of splitting, recombining, renaming, disbanding and reassigning etc. of existing forces. But the existing forces had to be transported to the war zone before - they did not teleport.

Historically, the "first batch" of what later became the Americal Division sailed from New York on January 23, 1942 and arrived at Melbourne end of February 1942.

In the game, the assets could become available at the East Coast base at that date (or a few days earlier to allow for loading time) and be transported to Australia or wherever the player thinks they are needed.

AFAIK the DBB is not designed to be played against Allied AI, so I don't think the reason for teleporting is to help the AI.

So I am wondering what is the reasoning behind the teleporting of the Americal assets to Melbourne?


Edit:

Hint for the naval modding experts - the convoy which carried the first batch of the Americal to Australia included the ships

SS Argentina
SS Barry
SS Cristobel
SS Erickson
SS McAndrew
SS Santa Elena
SS Santa Rosa
SS Island Mail

I have only found Santa Elena and Island Mail in the OOB.



Don Bowen -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/11/2010 2:53:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

...

Hint for the naval modding experts - the convoy which carried the first batch of the Americal to Australia included the ships

SS Argentina
SS Barry
SS Cristobel
SS Erickson
SS McAndrew
SS Santa Elena
SS Santa Rosa
SS Island Mail

I have only found Santa Elena and Island Mail in the OOB.




Problem is that many of these ships only made a voyage or two in the Pacific and then left. Rather than a massive set of withdraw/returns, some ships were left out and others allowed to stay longer. Picture is Argentina, from: http://www.merriam-press.com/troopshipsofworldwarii.aspx



[image]local://upfiles/757/EE82C13A34514DF0B5C11CD29B4C67DF.jpg[/image]



JWE -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/11/2010 3:28:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
So I am wondering what is the reasoning behind the teleporting of the Americal assets to Melbourne?

There’s not too many ways to do this otherwise. The ‘best’ solution is to have delayed entry loaded lift TFs show up in Balboa, on the right day, with sailing orders to Melbourne, Noumea, wherever.

There are still some bumpy things going on with off-map TFs that make this a less then optimal solution at the moment. I would hate for such critical reinforcements to get caught up in some off-map destination or fragment do-loop. People are looking at this, but the occurrences are far and few between, have strangely different manifestations, and are not very well documented, so they are very hard to nail down and solve. Once we get comfy with how this part of the system works, we can slip in some delayed arrival TFs in place of the transporter beam. For now, just think of it as an interim solution.

P.S. As Don mentioned a lot of Grace Line types were in and out of theater (and mostly out), so we just picked a bunch of Grace’s to stay in-theater for the duration. There’s the Santa Elena/Barbara/Maria/Inez/Paula, Rochambeau, Etolin, Maui, and Thomas Barry. Lots of equivalent ships to Argentina and Santa Rosa.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/14/2010 6:32:53 AM)

Thanks for your replies, gentlemen.

I understand that it not possible to include all ships which have been in and out of the PTO and that compromises must be made even in DBB.

Thus my remark was aimed at interested modders and not intended to criticize the scenario designers [:)].


Re teleporting - I don't see the need for off-map TFs in this case.

I have put the TF 6814 assets at the East Coast base with an arrival date in January 42.

It will be the player's job to find transportation to wherever he thinks the units should go.

Same principle applied to the other teleported units on the various atolls like Bora-Bora, Penryhn etc.


Thanks for the warning regarding possible problems with off-map TFs - I intended to use this feature to "make appear" the German Armed Merchant Raiders Thor and Michel, which both met their fate in the PTO.



JWE -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/14/2010 2:29:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
Thanks for the warning regarding possible problems with off-map TFs - I intended to use this feature to "make appear" the German Armed Merchant Raiders Thor and Michel, which both met their fate in the PTO.

Yeah, should reiterate that I don't "know" there's a problem, or if so, what the problem is. Just that some people have seen bumps in the road.

Seems to be related to off-map TFs that are doing things besides just showing up (loading, changing destinations, etc). You can't (shouldn't) put any J-side vessels in an off-map hex, in any case, but I'm sure you can have Thor and Michel appear at an on-map hex somewhere, at any time, without any problems. You might want to keep their entry hex at least two or three hexes away from an on-off holding box, just to be safe, but otherwise, late arrival TFs that appear on-map work just fine.



stuman -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/14/2010 11:13:09 PM)

quote:

Thanks for the warning regarding possible problems with off-map TFs - I intended to use this feature to "make appear" the German Armed Merchant Raiders Thor and Michel, which both met their fate in the PTO.


That sounds interesting. Would you mind sharing when/if you get those modded ?



Local Yokel -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/15/2010 5:59:09 PM)

I have been spending some enjoyable hours paddling round the creeks and backwaters of Da Babes, but when I looked in at Shanghai I was a bit surprised not to be greeted by Izumo. In CHS I found this vessel and sister Iwate a useful alternative to the Katoris for soaking up enemy fire during contested landings, so I wonder whether they might be candidates for inclusion in a future version. The CHS artwork unfortunately left them looking too much like Tokiwa, so I had a stab at improving it:

[image]local://upfiles/23929/133701A36BFF451888D1983CD5F889A7.gif[/image]



stuman -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/16/2010 6:24:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

I have been spending some enjoyable hours paddling round the creeks and backwaters of Da Babes, but when I looked in at Shanghai I was a bit surprised not to be greeted by Izumo. In CHS I found this vessel and sister Iwate a useful alternative to the Katoris for soaking up enemy fire during contested landings, so I wonder whether they might be candidates for inclusion in a future version. The CHS artwork unfortunately left them looking too much like Tokiwa, so I had a stab at improving it:

[image]local://upfiles/23929/133701A36BFF451888D1983CD5F889A7.gif[/image]


A bit more info :

http://ww2db.com/ship_spec.php?ship_id=478



TulliusDetritus -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/16/2010 9:21:46 AM)

I hadn't paid attention to the Scenario section of this forum yet! Mostly because I thought AE was truly finished (and it is). Then Sardaukar mentioned this mod on the general forum. I downloaded it and... great mod! [:)] I like the Yo's ships [:D] Another big difference: the Base Forces have been radically changed. In AE vanilla you especially get tons and tons of USA Army Base Forces (= 200 support, mostly for the Southwest Pacific front). They disappeared here. Thanks for your effort. I will be using this mod, that's certain [:)]



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/18/2010 4:59:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

quote:

Thanks for the warning regarding possible problems with off-map TFs - I intended to use this feature to "make appear" the German Armed Merchant Raiders Thor and Michel, which both met their fate in the PTO.


That sounds interesting. Would you mind sharing when/if you get those modded ?


Np - just drop me a PM with your mail address.

Here's a teaser:



[image]local://upfiles/1313/42C00563647B4B2C8F8DEB5640566A66.jpg[/image]



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/18/2010 5:04:02 PM)

Thor:

Note: I'm not an artist and only tool I have is Windows Paint. So if some graphics wizard wants to provide better side art - your are welcome!



[image]local://upfiles/1313/B5B2BA588A3B42599C9A8B2311F21484.jpg[/image]



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/18/2010 5:05:47 PM)

You want this one as well?


[image]local://upfiles/1313/CDF48BAEF8BB4E148E93F0A3EECC4DA2.jpg[/image]



oldman45 -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/20/2010 5:36:12 AM)

I like the sailing ship. Were there many used in the south pacific?



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/21/2010 7:15:15 AM)

I doubt that there have been many commercial "tall ships" left by WW2. The one above is the ex-German four-mast-barque Pamir. She sailed under Finnish colours and was seized as a prize of war by New Zealand when Finland joined Germany to attack Russia. New Zealand then used it for commercial and training purposes. She made several cruises between NZ, USA and Australia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamir_%28ship%29



noguaranteeofsanity -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/21/2010 9:55:28 AM)

There was the Snake Class Junks operated by the RAN, but was too late in the war for use in the South Pacific, with the first commissioned 30th December 1944. Although probably wouldn't fit into the commercial tall ships category at only 80 tons and with a diesel engine, as well as sails, being designed to resemble local fishing vessels found around Singapore. They were used by Services Reconnaissance Department Naval Section for intelligence gathering and transporting special operations units into Japanese held territory, after the success of the Krait in Operation Jaywick. Although armed with 4 x .50 Calibre Brownings and 2 x 20mm cannons, they relied more on deceptions and stealth to survive, they probably wouldn't be much use in their intended role or survive very long, if used in the game.

More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_class_junk

EDIT: Actually there was Falie, a Dutch ketch commissioned into the RAN in 1940 and the first vessel to detect the midget submarines as they made their way into Sydney Harbour on 31st May 1942 and was later used as a transport in New Guinea.

More info here: http://www.afloat.com.au/afloat-magazine/2008/november-2008/Is_Failie_Finished



Sardaukar -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/27/2010 8:52:56 AM)

Wasp-issue is still there, even after starting the DaBigBabes latest (published) version game with latest patch, I think this is also stock database issue. Problem is that Wasp VF apparently is set to re-size from 30 to 36, but there is some data problem. I think the re-size is incorrectly set in editor.



[image]local://upfiles/4867/2C17B77A30A044A693A69953FE119001.jpg[/image]



noguaranteeofsanity -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/27/2010 9:21:17 AM)

The squadron resize worked for me, VF-71 went to 36 in July 42, the same as the other USN carriers in Da Babes scenario 29, started with a clean install and the latest patch. Also appears to be identical to scenario 28 and correct in the editor.



Sardaukar -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/27/2010 1:50:48 PM)

Donno, not working for me. I'll try to move it off CV if it works and if that is not working, I send Wasp to SF to see if that helps. 



witpqs -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/27/2010 5:26:35 PM)

You mention stock, so I'll mention that in scenario 1 my Wasp fighters resized to 30. That seems correct, as Wasp has less aircraft capacity than the other USN fleet carriers. It has stayed that way through October '43. Perhaps it will later get larger as attack plane squadrons get smaller?



Sardaukar -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (10/28/2010 10:49:02 AM)

I am thinking that it may be working as designed in historical size-sense, just that somehow the text detail on unit display is somehow wrong/mismatch.



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.6875