RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (Full Version)

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



Message

Mac Linehan -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/21/2011 5:13:20 PM)

John -

Many thanks to the whole Team for all the hard work done to improve and tweak AE.

Mac

P.S. I trust that you and Beaudy will be safe, and enjoy many insect free miles and beautiful sunny days on your Harley...



herwin -> Road Capacities (10/21/2011 6:11:07 PM)

I found the sources for the road capacities in Italy. US Army planning figures.

Supply combat zone:

Good weather flat/rolling/mountain
2 lane dirt 1600/1200/300 tons/day
2 lane gravel 3400/2700/1000
2 lane asphalt 6000/5000/2300
2 lane concrete 8500/7500/3400

1 lane dirt 1200/900/200
1 lane gravel 2500/2000/750
1 lane asphalt 4500/4000/1800
1 lane concrete 6300/5500/2500

Bad weather
2 lane dirt 150/120/30
2 lane gravel 1400/1100/250
2 lane asphalt 4000/3600/1500
2 lane concrete 6000/5300/2300

1 lane dirt 110/90/20
1 lane gravel 1100/800/200
1 lane asphalt 3000/2700/1100
1 lane concrete 4500/4000/1700

Single track RR 4000/4000/4000
Double track RR 12000/12000/12000

Tons per day required for a division slice, static:
British 650
US 760
German motorised 660
German infantry 400

Tons per day required for a division slice, moving:
British 1950
US 2280
German motorised 1980
German infantry 1200

Base capacity in the communications zone for a two-lane road:
Dirt 4900 tons/day
Gravel 6000 tons/day
Paved 36000 tons/day



JWE -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/21/2011 7:04:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan
John -

Many thanks to the whole Team for all the hard work done to improve and tweak AE.

Mac

P.S. I trust that you and Beaudy will be safe, and enjoy many insect free miles and beautiful sunny days on your Harley...

You are very welcome Mac. It's people like you that we do the work for.

We'll definitely try to be safe. Neither me nor Beaudy is a "bugs in your teeth" kinda rider. Installed a windshield and got him some way cool doggie goggles. He looks like a War I pilot. And his Harley Beast Rider vest is a stone chick magnet. Took him to the beach and we were hanging out on Cloutier's patio and ended up sharing a table with a couple from Mobile HOGs and two gushing coeds from LSU; ... "ohhh, what a cute little dawg!" ... [8D]



JWE -> RE: Road Capacities (10/21/2011 7:50:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
I found the sources for the road capacities in Italy. US Army planning figures.

Harry, the people doing this stuff know all that already. It is not material to how the algorithm works. If you must exhibit your facility with Internet sources, I would ask you to please do so in your own thread. Academic appreciations are nice, but have no bearing on what we are doing in these threads. Please be more circumspect. Thanks.



Mac Linehan -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/21/2011 9:51:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan
John -

Many thanks to the whole Team for all the hard work done to improve and tweak AE.

Mac

P.S. I trust that you and Beaudy will be safe, and enjoy many insect free miles and beautiful sunny days on your Harley...

You are very welcome Mac. It's people like you that we do the work for.

We'll definitely try to be safe. Neither me nor Beaudy is a "bugs in your teeth" kinda rider. Installed a windshield and got him some way cool doggie goggles. He looks like a War I pilot. And his Harley Beast Rider vest is a stone chick magnet. Took him to the beach and we were hanging out on Cloutier's patio and ended up sharing a table with a couple from Mobile HOGs and two gushing coeds from LSU; ... "ohhh, what a cute little dawg!" ... [8D]


Beaudy -

I was going to ask if Dad was planning on doggie eye wear, it seems he is already on it.

Original:
And his Harley Beast Rider vest is a stone chick magnet. Took him to the beach and we were hanging out on Cloutier's patio and ended up sharing a table with a couple from Mobile HOGs and two gushing coeds from LSU; ... "ohhh, what a cute little dawg!" ... [8D]


Sir - I sense a plan here - you are a cunning rascal...

Mac



ny59giants -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/21/2011 10:19:13 PM)

Beaudy IS John's pick up line. [;)]



Blackhorse -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/22/2011 4:15:00 PM)

I'm delighted to see that you are rolling out hex stacking limits for testing.

I would like to playtest this; unfortunately, my day job does not leave me enough time. So I'll be "Colonel Blimp" and voice my concerns for others to resolve (or ignore) in playtesting [:)]

My concern with stacking limits based on the number of troops is that the limits may (counter-intuitively) give an advantage to artillery and armor-heavy forces in difficult (jungle, mountain, wooded, rough, swamp) terrain.

Also, the limits may allow the Japanese an ahistorically easy advance through difficult terrain in China, once the Chinese and Japanese are capped at the same troop ceiling. This removes China's only advantage in the theater -- the ability to outnumber the Japanese; while maximizing Japan's advantages -- more firepower and AV per soldier.



JWE -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/22/2011 8:32:08 PM)

Howdy Joel,

Understand your concerns. Couple things to realize about SLs.

1 The Sls relate to game troop density, not IRL troop density. IRL troop densities are very different; about 2 to 3 times game troop densities. So IRL troop density concerns don’t have much relevance to the algorithm.

2 The SLs aren’t hard limits. If either side goes over the limit what happens is they experience greater fatigue and disruption (random 1 to 5 for each unit) and, most importantly, eat supply at a higher rate; for each 10% over the stack limit, supply usage increases by an additional 20%. Obviously, the larger the SL for a hex, the larger the unit that can cause an overstack and begin the supply penalty.

There’s lots of headroom, in the vast majority of China hexes, for major battles with very large formations, on both sides. There’s generally room for 3 J-Divs and supporting combat troops (Arty, Tanks, and Engs), facing 4 to 5 Chinese Corps (about 60-80k per side, per hex). The only thing limited is the Megastack.

The SLs try to take account of the 3:1 ratio. In a fully occupied defended hex, it’s gonna be a bitch for an attacker to get a decent ratio for more than a few turns because of the limits. But then that’s how it was, yeah? So I don’t think Japan is gonna run rampant. If China chooses well and defends correctly, results in that theater might show up a bit closer to nominal: and an SL limited ‘difficult’ terrain hex will swing even more to the defender’s advantage.

No advantage to Arty. Believe me Joel, that’s the first thing we tested. Frankly, arty works like it’s supposed to if it’s used as it was.

Armor is helpful, but we’ve been using Babes where the whole armor thing has been redone. Haven’t seen anything where armor provides any significant advantage. In highly disadvantageous terrain, it is proportionally disadvantaged.

But, of course, all this is predicated on the players being righteous. And those are the very players the SLs were done for.

Garry Owen, ya horsey boy. John



Blackhorse -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/23/2011 2:27:53 AM)


Yikes! A Redleg who has thought things through. Who'd a thunk it?


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Howdy Joel,

Understand your concerns. Couple things to realize about SLs.

1 The Sls relate to game troop density, not IRL troop density. IRL troop densities are very different; about 2 to 3 times game troop densities. So IRL troop density concerns don’t have much relevance to the algorithm.

2 The SLs aren’t hard limits. If either side goes over the limit what happens is they experience greater fatigue and disruption (random 1 to 5 for each unit) and, most importantly, eat supply at a higher rate; for each 10% over the stack limit, supply usage increases by an additional 20%. Obviously, the larger the SL for a hex, the larger the unit that can cause an overstack and begin the supply penalty.

There’s lots of headroom, in the vast majority of China hexes, for major battles with very large formations, on both sides. There’s generally room for 3 J-Divs and supporting combat troops (Arty, Tanks, and Engs), facing 4 to 5 Chinese Corps (about 60-80k per side, per hex). The only thing limited is the Megastack.

The SLs try to take account of the 3:1 ratio. In a fully occupied defended hex, it’s gonna be a bitch for an attacker to get a decent ratio for more than a few turns because of the limits. But then that’s how it was, yeah? So I don’t think Japan is gonna run rampant. If China chooses well and defends correctly, results in that theater might show up a bit closer to nominal: and an SL limited ‘difficult’ terrain hex will swing even more to the defender’s advantage.

No advantage to Arty. Believe me Joel, that’s the first thing we tested. Frankly, arty works like it’s supposed to if it’s used as it was.

Armor is helpful, but we’ve been using Babes where the whole armor thing has been redone. Haven’t seen anything where armor provides any significant advantage. In highly disadvantageous terrain, it is proportionally disadvantaged.

But, of course, all this is predicated on the players being righteous. And those are the very players the SLs were done for.

Garry Owen, ya horsey boy. John




Andrew Brown -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/24/2011 11:37:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

I'm delighted to see that you are rolling out hex stacking limits for testing.

I would like to playtest this; unfortunately, my day job does not leave me enough time. So I'll be "Colonel Blimp" and voice my concerns for others to resolve (or ignore) in playtesting [:)]

My concern with stacking limits based on the number of troops is that the limits may (counter-intuitively) give an advantage to artillery and armor-heavy forces in difficult (jungle, mountain, wooded, rough, swamp) terrain.

Also, the limits may allow the Japanese an ahistorically easy advance through difficult terrain in China, once the Chinese and Japanese are capped at the same troop ceiling. This removes China's only advantage in the theater -- the ability to outnumber the Japanese; while maximizing Japan's advantages -- more firepower and AV per soldier.


Hi Blackhorse,

There have been a number of such concerns raised. My view is that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". Unfortunately, I am in the same boat as you - not enough free time to do any testing of my own.

Andrew



JWE -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/24/2011 6:51:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
Hi Blackhorse,

There have been a number of such concerns raised. My view is that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". Unfortunately, I am in the same boat as you - not enough free time to do any testing of my own.

Andrew

Well then, let's put the pudding on the table. Would have liked to have done a flan, but it's gonna have to have to be a spotted dick.

Ok, used the calculation algorithm for everything except Island Sizes. Those were witchy because there is a default SL value for them in code. But Michael set the default checks and calculations in stone, so here we go.

The biggie, for SLs is the Pac Island stuff. Mainland things are working out pretty good and test out right nice. Island stuff is much more grainy. Very Small Islands (size-1) are at the default value of 6k, for the most part, but there are a few places where SL=10k.

Isl Siz=2 has an arbitrary algorithm, but a determinable one. It returns values from 10k to 30k, depending, with the majority in the 20-25k range. Much more grainy than the standard 30k default.

Isl Siz=3 is set to have terrain driven SLs. Reason for that is once a land area gets over a certain size, the terrain should control.

That's about it. A pwhexe based on this algorithm will be posted on the Babes site. Righteous comments are welcome.



JWE -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/30/2011 3:42:02 PM)

Map data with stacking limits are up on their own page on the Babes site.

Two versions; one for use with the Extended map, one for use with the Stock Map.

BabesLite and BigBabes 'A' scenarios use the set for the Stock Map.
BabesLite and BigBabes 'B' and 'C' scenarios use the set for the Extended Map.

These have been sent to Andrew Brown, along with the descriptions and modified calculations. As always, using these is a matter of choice. One may, or may not, choose to use them, but if one side uses them, the other needs to use them as well.



witpqs -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/30/2011 4:08:46 PM)

Very cool. Thanks! [8D]

When you say 'sent to Andrew', are you implying that there is something he must do to before they are ready to rock, or are they ready to go with those scenario #'s?



JWE -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/30/2011 5:06:04 PM)

Ready to rock n roll.

Sent to Andrew 'cause we want to keep our stuff as similar as possible. Our version has almost every Small Island separately calculated. Wanted AB to see the rationales and the 'how we did it'.



witpqs -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/30/2011 5:12:48 PM)

Thanks. Already got the download. I'll get up to speed and get ready for a PBM if I can tempt somebody.



Buck Beach -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/30/2011 9:25:24 PM)

A couple of quick questions. If they don't belong here please direct me to the correct location.

I am making the changes in accordance with "List of differences between scenarios 028 and 048. New unit 6406 "Masirah RN Det" refers to suffix change to 100, is this a new suffix? Withdrawal type is 2, I can't find where to make this change.

Unit 6407 "4th NW Frontier Base Force", shows an attribute change to 1, where do I find this to make the change.

Air Group 3251 "No.244 Sqn RAF", where do I change the subNum (can't find it to change)

Buck



witpqs -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/31/2011 2:39:16 PM)

John,

Are Masirah and Dante the only bases added with the new extended map? I'm going to plug them into that Google Earth list and I just don't want to miss any.



JWE -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/31/2011 3:55:48 PM)

@ Buck,

Those LCUs are Andrew Brown's. Babes doesn't use them (yet?) so can't say exactly. Think suffix 100 is just another code for 'none' or 'invalid type'. Withdrawal 2 is the little round check boxes next to the Withdrawal radio button. Attribute 1 is the Static Attached setting. subNum is the Max Splits setting.

@ witpqs,

There's 13 total from Andrew Brown. Grab any of the new Babes B scens and look with the editor at Locations 1600 - 1612. They're all there. [;)]
Bellingham; Truscott; Ballarat; Quetta; Jacobabad; Fort Sandeman; Kohat; Peshawar; Gilgit; Rajshashi; Masirah; Abd al Kuri; Dante.



witpqs -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/31/2011 5:45:28 PM)

Wow - Andrew's been even busier than I thought.



Buck Beach -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (10/31/2011 6:02:37 PM)

Thank you,

Buck



drw61 -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (11/2/2011 8:23:37 PM)

Just wondering if anyone else is having this issue.
I'm using the extended map pwhexe.dat dated 9/25/11 and a modified version of DaBigBabes-B, Ext Map, Dec.7 Start (so its probably a problem of my own making).

Ships at Abadan (1411) are being moved to Aden (815) due to invalid hex location.

Thanks, Daryl


[image]local://upfiles/12535/5FD532466E7D406F92492175A51455A4.jpg[/image]



JWE -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (11/3/2011 4:31:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: drw61
Ships at Abadan (1411) are being moved to Aden (815) due to invalid hex location.

Hello Daryl,

Can't be certain, but it might be that you used an earlier BigBabes-B scenario file as basis for your mod. Certain tweaks had to be done to make the files fully compatible with Andrew's thingys in the upper left corner of the Ext Map. It's only the version-09 files (Sept. 18, 2011) and beyond, that are fully compatible with the Ext Map.

If this is so, the fixes to the earlier files are relatively simple, using witploadAE. They are very easy to do, but a couple of them are a skoosh counter-intuitive. Send me your scenario files (not a savegame) and I'll see what's up, fix them if it's what I think it is, and give you a full changelog. If it ain't what I think it is, I'll figure it out and fix it anyway. Sending you a pm with my email address, please send the files (zipped, please) there.

Current v09 files don't have the problem you are reporting. Just downloaded 28-B, fired it up, and reinforcement entry locations work just ducky.

Ciao. John



drw61 -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (11/5/2011 2:44:03 AM)

Thanks for the response John I'll take a look at the version I'm using
Daryl

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: drw61
Ships at Abadan (1411) are being moved to Aden (815) due to invalid hex location.

Hello Daryl,

Can't be certain, but it might be that you used an earlier BigBabes-B scenario file as basis for your mod. Certain tweaks had to be done to make the files fully compatible with Andrew's thingys in the upper left corner of the Ext Map. It's only the version-09 files (Sept. 18, 2011) and beyond, that are fully compatible with the Ext Map.

If this is so, the fixes to the earlier files are relatively simple, using witploadAE. They are very easy to do, but a couple of them are a skoosh counter-intuitive. Send me your scenario files (not a savegame) and I'll see what's up, fix them if it's what I think it is, and give you a full changelog. If it ain't what I think it is, I'll figure it out and fix it anyway. Sending you a pm with my email address, please send the files (zipped, please) there.

Current v09 files don't have the problem you are reporting. Just downloaded 28-B, fired it up, and reinforcement entry locations work just ducky.

Ciao. John




ny59giants -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (12/4/2011 2:34:28 AM)

Any update of getting the display of actual stacking limits for non-base hexes. Here is what it looks like just outside of Hong Kong at start. It states a stacking limit of 135,000. But I would need to pull out my calculator to tally them all up.

I've just downloaded and installed Babes-B as I want to use it for a mod I'll be trying to come up with Damian.

[image]local://upfiles/15133/0758543C83C04F879742593E531C3391.jpg[/image]



witpqs -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (12/4/2011 3:26:35 AM)

Michael has that bug and is working on it.



Halsey -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (12/4/2011 2:33:32 PM)

Andrew...

Is 60000 stacking limits for atolls correct?

That's what's appearing in my game.



JWE -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (12/4/2011 2:51:26 PM)

Very Small Islands (atoll terrain or otherwise) are supposed to default to the regular 6,000. Have no idea why it would say 60,000. Maybe a display glitch? If it says 60,000 that would be a good thing to send to Michael.



witpqs -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (12/4/2011 2:58:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Andrew...

Is 60000 stacking limits for atolls correct?

That's what's appearing in my game.


Atolls can be any size just like islands. 'Atoll' refers to the terrain rather than the size. Talking about the old limits, IIRC they were 6k, 30k, 60k, and unlimited. Christmas Island (Line Islands) was unlimited, for example. Truk was 60k. Obviously many atolls were 6k.

I haven't looked at them all by any means, but I've noted that Christmas Island is no longer unlimited, and a couple of (non-atoll) islands I looked at that are 60k in stock are now 35k.

So I guess the question is, which atoll have you looked at that says 60k?



JWE -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (12/4/2011 3:58:47 PM)

Yep, what witpqs says.

Except, there's some differences between what AB has for SLs in his data and what Babes has. Babes has seriously messed with every Island in the Pacific on an individual basis, and has given the results and the algorithm to AB for him to use. Perhaps he will, at some point, but it's important to realize that AB's data and Babes data are a skoosh different. Here is what the Babes data files should do.

To amplify a bit: Islands come in three colors and many different flavors. There's three "Sizes" that show up in the pwhexe editor.

Island Size = 1; Very Small Island; All of these used to default to SL of 6,000. "Most" still do, but there's a few that get up to 10,000. We wanted to keep the default, so Michael set up the code to give a hex its listed SL, but DEFAULT if the SL value was '0'. So it's a no-brainer to make a Very Small Island have a SL of either 6,000 or (by sticking a value in the SL field) 5,000, or 10,000. But, most are still the good old default of 6,000.

Island Size = 2; Small Island; All of these used to default to SL of 30,000. "Most" now do NOT. If the SL field was set to '0' it would, once again, DEFAULT, but every size=2 island, in the game, has been vetted and individually assigned a SL. These range from 10,000 to 25,000 (with the majority at 20,000).

Island Size = 3; Medium Island; All of these used to default to SL of 60,000. "None" of them do so now. If the SL field was set to '0' it would, once again, DEFAULT, but every size=3 island, in the game, has been vetted and individually assigned a SL. For Size=3 islands, we have decided (and AB agrees) that they are large enough for the "terrain" to be the controling factor, rather than the size. Size=3 islands now range between 20,000 and 40,000.

Atoll is a terrain type, not a size. Any island, of any size, can have atoll terrain, jungle terrain, jungle-rough terrain, wooded, wooded-rough, or simply rough terrain.

Hope this helps.



Halsey -> RE: Experimental map data file with stacking limits (12/4/2011 6:18:04 PM)

The entire Hawaiian chain of islands show 60000.[:D]

Baker, Canton, Palmyra, Johnston and more.

BTW...
I posted it here because it appeared after putting the stacking limit pwhex file in place.[;)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.53125