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

medicff -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/4/2010 1:37:37 AM)


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



JWE -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/4/2010 2:51:25 PM)


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. [sm=innocent0009.gif]



Sardaukar -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/4/2010 5:40:40 PM)


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. [sm=innocent0009.gif]



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

[image]http://www.warisboring.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/714207.jpg[/image]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Apiata [8D]



JWE -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/4/2010 8:01:30 PM)


quote:

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

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



witpqs -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/4/2010 9:41:07 PM)

Looks more like a hair don't. Make sure it's a big hat!



noguaranteeofsanity -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/5/2010 6:01:08 AM)

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.



JWE -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/5/2010 2:28:36 PM)

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.



drw61 -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/5/2010 2:28:53 PM)

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




noguaranteeofsanity -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/5/2010 2:58:52 PM)


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.



JWE -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/5/2010 3:06:19 PM)



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.



Buck Beach -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/7/2010 8:06:24 PM)

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.



Don Bowen -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/7/2010 9:53:19 PM)


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?



asdicus -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/7/2010 10:21:16 PM)

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.



Buck Beach -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/8/2010 1:35:07 AM)

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



rockmedic109 -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/8/2010 7:25:29 AM)

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. 



Don Bowen -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/8/2010 2:53:26 PM)

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.




rockmedic109 -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/9/2010 5:31:05 AM)

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!



witpqs -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/17/2010 12:29:10 AM)

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.



JWE -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/20/2010 6:41:07 PM)

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.
[image]local://upfiles/17451/424D396F445A468889649443E2056E8D.jpg[/image]
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.




witpqs -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/20/2010 6:45:31 PM)


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!



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/21/2010 4:45:48 PM)

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! [:D] Just wanted to mention a few potential improvements...



JWE -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/21/2010 8:03:46 PM)

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! [:D] 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



Central Blue -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/22/2010 8:27:57 PM)

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.



stuman -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/22/2010 8:40:49 PM)

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.



Sardaukar -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/22/2010 8:59:04 PM)

+1. [8D]



JWE -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/22/2010 10:33:59 PM)


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) [;)]



Central Blue -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/23/2010 4:46:48 AM)


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.




LargeSlowTarget -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/23/2010 8:58:43 AM)

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 [;)]



Blackhorse -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/23/2010 11:45:54 AM)


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 . . .




Don Bowen -> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata (9/23/2010 1:37:04 PM)


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.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.984375