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

JWE -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (8/20/2010 7:10:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
I know it would be a big pain in the butt JWE, but a follow up list of the changes would sure be helpful. That way we could introduce your changes into our own mods. Save oh so much work don't you know, over using a line by line needles in the haystack comparison of the datas. If not feasible well back to the drawing board.

Aaarrgh! It’s been needle in the haystack for us too. Someone finds a thingy, so we look, and .. Lo! there’s a couple other thingies, so we tweak those and .. Behold! there’s a little something that makes it work better. It’s a summabeechin pita, all around.

But it is just tweaks – redoing the Americal components, fx, (fun, but what’s there now is what’s been there forever, so no harm, no foul). Then there’s the hidden default TO&Es that we got under control, but again, it’s an artifact that’s been around, so no big issue that’s not already there. And moved some units in and out of “special” AI slots to minimize a few problems seen with the more extreme AI moves. And changed arrival dates and locations to be more historical, adding a ship class or two and some ships. And incorporated some very similar tweaks provided by the Air people for planes and airgroups. Added a couple of Treespider bases, added a couple Don Bowen bases, humpin on Andrew for a few (three) changes to pwhex file (that won't matter a damn to games in progress).

Basically, just inputting all the tweaks, twonks, thingys, and such, that will let the scenario play … smoother … nothing wicked, nothing gnarly, just a serious effort to make the data “right” and have the scenario play “smoother”. That’s why we say no need to crash out of ongoing games. Nothing fundamental in the changes.



henry1611 -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (8/20/2010 8:40:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Hi Henry1611,

The next update is again just a bunch of “little” things. Stuff to make it go smoother, keep the AI better behaved, fix some things that are a pita, but won’t break the game. No … nothing that one should crash an ongoing game for – just stuff that will make it work a ‘leetle beet’ better the next time someone starts from the beginning - nothing fundamental.

Yeah, the number of sorties remaining for KB in scen 29 has been adjusted.

Ciao.



Thanks JWE. Looking forward to it, especially any tweaks to the AI (not that I am complaining). I only have time for solitary play, so anything that makes the AI better makes for that much better an experience.

Henry



Mac Linehan -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (8/21/2010 3:30:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Have you made an additional extension map, and if so is it available? I am always interested in anything you do.

Buck


Made but not available yet. Still working on it (for a modified Big Babes scenario).

By the way I am also interested in changes you are making or planning. From what I have read they look like interesting changes.

Andrew


Andrew -

Am also interested in anything you put together. Please keep us informed.

Mac



Mac Linehan -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (8/21/2010 3:34:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: henry1611

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Hi Henry1611,

The next update is again just a bunch of “little” things. Stuff to make it go smoother, keep the AI better behaved, fix some things that are a pita, but won’t break the game. No … nothing that one should crash an ongoing game for – just stuff that will make it work a ‘leetle beet’ better the next time someone starts from the beginning - nothing fundamental.

Yeah, the number of sorties remaining for KB in scen 29 has been adjusted.

Ciao.



Thanks JWE. Looking forward to it, especially any tweaks to the AI (not that I am complaining). I only have time for solitary play, so anything that makes the AI better makes for that much better an experience.

Henry



JWE -

I must say again how much I and the other forumites appreciate the Babes Team's dedication to detail and excellence.

A patiently anticipating Mac



witp1951 -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (8/21/2010 2:03:26 PM)

Also thank BigBabes team and contributors for the work all of you put into this mod. It is appreciated!



medicff -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (8/22/2010 4:02:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Weidi72
unit 5981, 8th AUS Division has each over 200 aus inf sec AND AIF aif inf sec after recombining. aussault strength nearly 600. seems a little bit too much.

Thank you. That was an artifact of the hidden default TO&Es. It has been fixed and will be ok in the next update.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
Thanks. I missed the duplicate. For my purposes I need the brigades, so I will have to add them (and the division shell) in and remove the Div in slot 7964.
Andrew

We can do that too. Makes things cleaner. Please tell arrival dates and arrival bases for your stuff. We will follow your inputs.

Ciao.



Really like the tweaks with DaBabes. Question regarding AUS squad updates. You can't tell the difference in AUS sections without a year. ie AUS 41 Inf section or AUS 42 Inf section. Another side topic, maybe for designers in general or did you tweak the squad combat numbers.

Why have the squads change at all when:

AUS inf section (1941), Aus Inf section (1942), AIF Inf Section (1941) all have the exact same firepower 15 anti-armor & 18 anti-soft.

A lot of confusion trying to set upgrades when doesn't matter for unit strength. Or am I missing some other reason.

Just a thought.

Thanks
Pat



JWE -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (8/22/2010 3:38:42 PM)

Hello Pat,

Other people have complained about that as well. We fiddled a bit more with the names to make them more descriptive and added a year notation. Instead of Aus Inf, we’re calling them AMF Inf – made more sense to keep CMF and AIF and then amalgamate them in mid ’42 into Australian Military Forces units. Just name changes - so now they are named:
CMF Militia 41 --> CMF Inf 41 --> AMF Inf 42 --> AMF Inf 43 and
AIF Inf 41 --> AMF Inf 42 --> AMF Inf 43

In the case of Australia, squads often upgrade to get the benefit of a different replacement (build) rate. CMF units (Aus Inf 41, now CMF Inf 41) gets built at 15 per month. AIF Inf gets built at 4 per month. This represents the differential between manpower available to the CMF and the AIF. Things get better in mid 42 when everything was AMF and both unit types could draw from the same pools (sort of). AMF Inf gets built at 55 per month.

So yes, it’s not just the bang data, it’s the differential in keeping the different units up to strength in the early war period.



Insurrectio -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (8/22/2010 5:15:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Hello Pat,

Other people have complained about that as well. We fiddled a bit more with the names to make them more descriptive and added a year notation. Instead of Aus Inf, we’re calling them AMF Inf – made more sense to keep CMF and AIF and then amalgamate them in mid ’42 into Australian Military Forces units. Just name changes - so now they are named:
CMF Militia 41 --> CMF Inf 41 --> AMF Inf 42 --> AMF Inf 43 and
AIF Inf 41 --> AMF Inf 42 --> AMF Inf 43

In the case of Australia, squads often upgrade to get the benefit of a different replacement (build) rate. CMF units (Aus Inf 41, now CMF Inf 41) gets built at 15 per month. AIF Inf gets built at 4 per month. This represents the differential between manpower available to the CMF and the AIF. Things get better in mid 42 when everything was AMF and both unit types could draw from the same pools (sort of). AMF Inf gets built at 55 per month.

So yes, it’s not just the bang data, it’s the differential in keeping the different units up to strength in the early war period.


I have the Big Babes and play by myself and with my friends at home. The details you put into your thought is truly astonishing. My hat is in my hand to you and I like your hat.

Can you answer me a question please? If the CMF has 15 per month and the AIF has 4 per month should not the AMF have 19 per month when they come together? I don't know.

Thank you.

Leafy



witpqs -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (8/22/2010 5:43:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Other people have complained about that as well. We fiddled a bit more with the names to make them more descriptive and added a year notation. Instead of Aus Inf, we’re calling them AMF Inf – made more sense to keep CMF and AIF and then amalgamate them in mid ’42 into Australian Military Forces units. Just name changes - so now they are named:
CMF Militia 41 --> CMF Inf 41 --> AMF Inf 42 --> AMF Inf 43 and
AIF Inf 41 --> AMF Inf 42 --> AMF Inf 43


Awesome that you've added a descriptor to make versions of the squads be unique - will make management of them possible, never mind easier! Thanks.



medicff -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (8/22/2010 10:38:26 PM)

Thanks JWE

That is great for the new names and now I know the reason for the differing Aussie squads. I really spend time trying to maximize the upgrade process and the latest tracker and getting to know the system helps tremendously, not to mention the new naming system will be awesome. [:D]

I am really appreciating the DaBabes allied side so far. I like the unit tweaking. Did you do the same for the Japanese and is DaBabes keeping the same play balance? I have noticed an improved allied engineer system and other benefits.

Pat



Central Blue -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (8/23/2010 1:45:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Darn. Don beat me to it. Yeah, what he said. Just as a supplement:

As Sardaukar noted, there’s some ‘infantry’ types in the first TOE (the beach defense MMGs), but these disappear on upgrade. DefBns didn’t really have infantry – but then, every Marine a rifleman – so these were a real witch to model. They evolved twice; first into hard humping Arty Bns, then into AA Bns. A couple (later war) actually had some real infantry individually assigned, and they are represented on an individual unit basis.

So, no, MarDefBns don’t have infantry in the TOE. There’s some shoot-able and AV-able stuff in certain individual units though (Wake, fx).

Btw, we (actually Faustini) ran this by Chuck Melson (the guy who wrote those Condition Red articles), and got his input.



I believe that the provisional rifle companies and tank platoons are assigned per Major Melson's Condition Red: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-C-Defense/index.html

So, as with so many other parts of this mod, things are just getting more and more historical.



Central Blue -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (8/23/2010 2:08:13 AM)

as long as things are still being kicked around....

I am curious about the development of the Ellice Islands to match how they were used by the 30th Bombardment group...

Based on prior experience trying to develop airfields at Dutch Harbor, seems like it would take a heck of a lot of engineers to get them up to level three in any reasonable amount of time to get them ready for B-24's.

But I expect that there are people that read these threads that know a heck of a lot more about those islands in the war than I do. Aside from the fact that the islands were ignored by the Japanese in real life, I suppose it would come down to the operational tempo maintained by the 30th while they were there.



oldman45 -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (8/23/2010 6:30:11 PM)

Ship class 217 (T 1940 program) has a 3/33 up-grade due when the subs arrive in theater in 1943. Figure its just a typo.



Dobey455 -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (8/26/2010 3:35:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Insurrectio


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Hello Pat,

Other people have complained about that as well. We fiddled a bit more with the names to make them more descriptive and added a year notation. Instead of Aus Inf, we’re calling them AMF Inf – made more sense to keep CMF and AIF and then amalgamate them in mid ’42 into Australian Military Forces units. Just name changes - so now they are named:
CMF Militia 41 --> CMF Inf 41 --> AMF Inf 42 --> AMF Inf 43 and
AIF Inf 41 --> AMF Inf 42 --> AMF Inf 43

In the case of Australia, squads often upgrade to get the benefit of a different replacement (build) rate. CMF units (Aus Inf 41, now CMF Inf 41) gets built at 15 per month. AIF Inf gets built at 4 per month. This represents the differential between manpower available to the CMF and the AIF. Things get better in mid 42 when everything was AMF and both unit types could draw from the same pools (sort of). AMF Inf gets built at 55 per month.

So yes, it’s not just the bang data, it’s the differential in keeping the different units up to strength in the early war period.


I have the Big Babes and play by myself and with my friends at home. The details you put into your thought is truly astonishing. My hat is in my hand to you and I like your hat.

Can you answer me a question please? If the CMF has 15 per month and the AIF has 4 per month should not the AMF have 19 per month when they come together? I don't know.

Thank you.

Leafy




CMF at 15 per month and AIF at 4 per month are the 1941 replacement rates. 55 squads per month is the AMF 42 squad replacement rate.
The AIF was entirely volunteer based throughout the war and the CMF was a combination of regulars (very few), volunteers and conscripts.

In 1942 the replacement rate for Australian units increases drastically as there was, historically, a huge surge in the number of volunteers when it was felt Australia was itself threatened. I believe this is exactly the same in stock, except that in stock the increase was to AIF squads with militia units then upgrading their TOE from CMF squads to AIF squads.

The replacement rate will decrease steadily during the war until by 1945 only a trickle remains as Australian manpower is essentially maxed out.



vettim89 -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (8/26/2010 4:19:38 AM)

JWE,

I was wondering if you have examined Treespiders take on the Manchuko garrioson. His use of permanently restricted components of a division that then is released when the final piece arrives in 1943 is an interesting take. Stripping the units from Manchuko I always thought was a bit off because the Japanese command was truly concerned that the Sovs might enter the fray. Just wondering if you are considering it.




henry1611 -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (8/26/2010 5:18:14 AM)

JWE,

I just saw Jwilkerson's August 9th update to his message concerning future patches, "Patch 04 and beyond!" (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2350321). In his message, Jwilkerson states:

quote:


For patch 05 we are considering doing a "data only" patch. No code changes are planned - only data changes. This will enable us to correct the various typos that have been identified by the team and others since the last data changes were allowed in patch 02


To the extent that DBB has not already corrected "the various typos" and to the extent the potential data corrections do not conflict with the data tweaks/fixes already contained in DBB, do you and Don intend at some point on correcting "the various typos" that may have been carried over from stock into DBB?

I would make the data corrections to my copy of DBB myself, but I don't know (1) that I would find them all via the forum search function and (2) that all of the data corrections potentially in Patch 05 have been noted on the forum. As a "dev," I imagine that you may have an inside track to the potential data corrections that are not readily apparent to the "general public."

I understand if you did not want to undertake this task, but DBB is my go to scenario, so I am just curious.

Regards,

Henry



JWE -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (8/26/2010 4:49:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89
JWE,
I was wondering if you have examined Treespiders take on the Manchuko garrioson. His use of permanently restricted components of a division that then is released when the final piece arrives in 1943 is an interesting take. Stripping the units from Manchuko I always thought was a bit off because the Japanese command was truly concerned that the Sovs might enter the fray. Just wondering if you are considering it.

It is an interesting take, but it won’t work for DBB purposes. In order to have it playable against the AI, we can’t monkey with the Japanese much. We have some alternatives that seem to be working out for Manchukuo, though.
quote:

ORIGINAL: henry1611
To the extent that DBB has not already corrected "the various typos" and to the extent the potential data corrections do not conflict with the data tweaks/fixes already contained in DBB, do you and Don intend at some point on correcting "the various typos" that may have been carried over from stock into DBB?

We go into the master files regularly, to fix up things noted here and elsewhere, and have already corrected many of "the various typos" in the present rev. But as you see, there’s always something else. [;)]

Everything done in any eventual data patch, for stock, will be in DBB.



vettim89 -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/1/2010 2:18:50 AM)

JWE,

Was wondering if you have a time line on the next release of DBB. My current 2x2 is moving along at a pretty slow pace and I want to start a new game. That said, I would like to use the DBB version with all the fixes on board



Weidi72 -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/1/2010 4:59:45 PM)

I'm in march 43 now and my us infantry units (saw it in marine divisions, army infantry div+reg) have a device without name/description in the TOE.
for examble in the army divisions the device has 54 pieces, but I don't know what it is.
If you load such a unit on ships you are not able to load these devices and you will get a info in the report, that the unit arrives in San Francisco as reinforcement. but then there isn't a part of this unit. it's still on your ships, and in your harbour (the unknown device).



JWE -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/1/2010 6:29:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Weidi72
I'm in march 43 now and my us infantry units (saw it in marine divisions, army infantry div+reg) have a device without name/description in the TOE.
for examble in the army divisions the device has 54 pieces, but I don't know what it is.
If you load such a unit on ships you are not able to load these devices and you will get a info in the report, that the unit arrives in San Francisco as reinforcement. but then there isn't a part of this unit. it's still on your ships, and in your harbour (the unknown device).

Never seen that. Only device with 54 is an 81mm mortar. No clue what could cause this. Post a screen shot if you don't mind and make sure it shows the division. I'll look deeper. Also keep a savegame showing this. If it's not something bizarre in data, might want to have it looked at on the tech forum.



Sardaukar -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/1/2010 6:39:45 PM)

Seen also here, even though I am not sure which device it is, first the current TOE:

[image]local://upfiles/4867/C09802F0E59843289EEAD67E2F21AFCE.jpg[/image]



Sardaukar -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/1/2010 6:40:37 PM)

Then when pressing "Show TOE":



[image]local://upfiles/4867/F416FB44DAB04F09B18FD170C5906038.jpg[/image]



Buck Beach -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/1/2010 7:24:35 PM)

Excuse me if I'm butting in but I don't see where unit/location 5171 (nor 5624) is the Marine Div in neither scenairo 26 (lite) or 28 (biggie).  Are you playing another mod?



Sardaukar -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/1/2010 7:54:13 PM)

Those screenshots should be from Scen 28. 



JWE -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/1/2010 8:15:15 PM)

@ Weidi72
@ Sardaukar

The good news is I found the cause of the problem. It is an artifact in the Device file from stock, that also occurs in the original release version-01 of DBB. It has been fixed in the current posted rev-02.

The bad news is that currently running games can't be updated, so it's just gonna have to be there.

The gratuitous news is that this effects everyone - stock, and all, so it's not just a rev-01 DBB thing. Here's what's up.

Device 1155 is an 81mm Mortar. It should upgrade to either none (00-none) or itself (1155-81mm Mortar). In the original stock Device file, device 1155 was a copy-paste of the original WiTP device 428-81mm Mortar. When done, the Upgrade field was left pointing to its "old" itself (428). In the official scenarios, the old WiTP devices (including 428) were all 9999d out (made inactive), so they don't function anyhow. However, the "name" remained in the field and was captured by the "Show TOE" routine. Only difference between stock and v-01 of DBB is that stock shows the name (and lets you think you actually have these devices) and DBB shows a blank.

Think we caught all those blivets, but one never knows. If anybody else finds 'blanks' showing up in the "Show TOE", please advise. Want to make sure we have them all fixed.

Good work, you guys. It's those little things that help tighten up the scenario. Ciao.



witpqs -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/2/2010 2:05:57 AM)

John,

I want to make sure I understand this because I have scenario 1 PBM's going. You found just that the root of the problem was in the stock (scenario 1) files, or is the symptom also present if playing scenario 1?



Herrbear -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/2/2010 4:53:13 PM)

I think device 1156 4.2in M2 Mortar has the same problem.



Central Blue -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/3/2010 8:19:44 PM)

British divisions, or at least the 18th, have a blank between the 25 pounder and Humber. It references device 1058 which used to be a Japanese aircraft cannon but is now devoid of data.

Some of the Australian artillery is British tan: 5958, 5960, 5962, 6135, 6136, 6137,

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

If someone has already posted these, I apologize in advance. [:)]



Buck Beach -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/3/2010 10:18:00 PM)

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



JWE -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/3/2010 10:24:34 PM)

Jeez, Louize, that's what we get depending on stock. Ok, will look and vet. Got a good handle on the sorts of things we should look for.

Thanks, folks. This will help make Babes 'high and tight'.

Ciao. John



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.421875