DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (Full Version)

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



Message

rjopel -> DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/24/2012 8:00:31 PM)

I'm playing the DaBigBabes 7 Dec start and I'm looking at ship conversion in Tracker. Tracker says the Castle AMc can be upgraded to either Castle AG or Castle ACM. When I open a Castle AMc I can't convert to either of these options.



Mac Linehan -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/24/2012 9:23:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel

I'm playing the DaBigBabes 7 Dec start and I'm looking at ship conversion in Tracker. Tracker says the Castle AMc can be upgraded to either Castle AG or Castle ACM. When I open a Castle AMc I can't convert to either of these options.


rjopel -

I fired up AE with DBB scn28C v10, and went to a 11 Dec 41 turn.

Also pulled up the AE editor info:

Castle AMc ID 195
Conversion Bind 282
Castle AG ID 197 allowed 12/41
Castle ACM ID 280 allowed 12/41.

Conversion Delay 12 / Shipyard Size 0

In game, AMc Sholapur (Castle) is anchored at Bombay (size 20 Repair Yard).

However, no conversion is shown on the ship menu. I do not have an answer for you, but your question does have my full attention; I am probably missing something obvious. Will have to wait for one of the Babes Team (Don or JWE?) to give an explanation and clarify.

Mac



Don Bowen -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/24/2012 9:44:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan

quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel

I'm playing the DaBigBabes 7 Dec start and I'm looking at ship conversion in Tracker. Tracker says the Castle AMc can be upgraded to either Castle AG or Castle ACM. When I open a Castle AMc I can't convert to either of these options.


rjopel -

I fired up AE with DBB scn28C v10, and went to a 11 Dec 41 turn.

Also pulled up the AE editor info:

Castle AMc ID 195
Conversion Bind 282
Castle AG ID 197 allowed 12/41
Castle ACM ID 280 allowed 12/41.

Conversion Delay 12 / Shipyard Size 0

In game, AMc Sholapur (Castle) is anchored at Bombay (size 20 Repair Yard).

However, no conversion is shown on the ship menu. I do not have an answer for you, but your question does have my full attention; I am probably missing something obvious. Will have to wait for one of the Babes Team (Don or JWE?) to give an explanation and clarify.

Mac



I think this may be due to the specified nationalities of the class and ship.

Not 100% sure I'm looking at the same scenario but if the class is New Zealand and the ship is Indian, the conversion is not valid.

Validity works pretty much the other way. If one wants a class/conversion to be useable by multiple British Commonwealth naitons, the class should be British.

Basically, the code will OK a class/ship match if:

Class and ship are defined as the same nationality.
or
Class is British and ship is Australian or New Zealand or Indian or Canadian or Commonwealth
or
Class is US and ship is Philippines

Perhaps the code should be more lenient (I no longer recall why the restriction was put in) or the scenario should be changed. Does sorta look like a trap for a scenario designer, doesn't it?



Mac Linehan -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/24/2012 9:52:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan

quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel

I'm playing the DaBigBabes 7 Dec start and I'm looking at ship conversion in Tracker. Tracker says the Castle AMc can be upgraded to either Castle AG or Castle ACM. When I open a Castle AMc I can't convert to either of these options.


rjopel -

I fired up AE with DBB scn28C v10, and went to a 11 Dec 41 turn.

Also pulled up the AE editor info:

Castle AMc ID 195
Conversion Bind 282
Castle AG ID 197 allowed 12/41
Castle ACM ID 280 allowed 12/41.

Conversion Delay 12 / Shipyard Size 0

In game, AMc Sholapur (Castle) is anchored at Bombay (size 20 Repair Yard).

However, no conversion is shown on the ship menu. I do not have an answer for you, but your question does have my full attention; I am probably missing something obvious. Will have to wait for one of the Babes Team (Don or JWE?) to give an explanation and clarify.

Mac



I think this may be due to the specified nationalities of the class and ship.

Not 100% sure I'm looking at the same scenario but if the class is New Zealand and the ship is Indian, the conversion is not valid.

Validity works pretty much the other way. If one wants a class/conversion to be usable by multiple British Commonwealth Nations, the class should be British.

Basically, the code will OK a class/ship match if:

Class and ship are defined as the same nationality.
or
Class is British and ship is Australian or New Zealand or Indian or Canadian or Commonwealth
or
Class is US and ship is Philippines

Perhaps the code should be more lenient (I no longer recall why the restriction was put in) or the scenario should be changed. Does sorta look like a trap for a scenario designer, doesn't it?



Don -

Thank You for your immediate response, your comments make sense. Will have to edit and move the Castle AMc around (to a port of a different nationality) and see what happens.

Or - it could be Japanese Agents at work... They can be nefarious little rascalsi!

Mac



Don Bowen -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/25/2012 1:16:17 AM)


Not the port Mac. It's the assigned nationalities of the ship and the class. It's a New Zealand Class and Indian ships assigned to it will not convert.



Mac Linehan -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/25/2012 3:07:38 AM)

Don -

Crystal Clear - thanks for the clarification, Sir!

Mac



rjopel -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/25/2012 7:25:11 AM)

So if the Castle AMc(195) and Castle AG (197) are changed to British the conversions would work for all Commenwealth then correct?

Will this be available in the next update?



rjopel -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/25/2012 7:50:20 AM)

I changed the Castle AMc(195) and Castle AG (197) to NATIONALITY=British and changed Castle ACM (280) to UPGRADE=280 and was able to convert both NZ and Indian ships to ACM's.



rjopel -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/25/2012 7:51:24 AM)

Would it be possible to fix an ongoing game or would this break something?



Mac Linehan -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/25/2012 10:56:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel

I changed the Castle AMc(195) and Castle AG (197) to NATIONALITY=British and changed Castle ACM (280) to UPGRADE=280 and was able to convert both NZ and Indian ships to ACM's.


rjopel -

While I have learned much while experimenting with the editor, I have not yet tried my hand at conversions.

Thank You for your very clear post, I will do the same with my game.

Mac



JWE -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/25/2012 11:55:38 PM)

Yeah, gosh, golly, gee whiz. Maybe the Indian trawlers aren't supposed to convert into something else. Heck, I really dunno.

You got some realistic (not internet) sources that say different, be glad to tweak things for you. Otherwise, Don has a good editor method for doing what you want. Ciao.



Don Bowen -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/26/2012 12:22:23 AM)

Heck, it looks like Sholapur (or Shalapore) was not even completed!

Two points:

1. The nationality of conversion classes is an excellent tool to specify conversions that one nation made and other(s) did not.

2. It is a trap for the unwary scenario designed. This one ought to go in the "Watch Out" list.




JWE -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/26/2012 12:25:42 AM)

Then we're in seriously deep poopie, Bro. Maybe da bo'fus be borked.



rjopel -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/26/2012 1:19:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yeah, gosh, golly, gee whiz. Maybe the Indian trawlers aren't supposed to convert into something else. Heck, I really dunno.

You got some realistic (not internet) sources that say different, be glad to tweak things for you. Otherwise, Don has a good editor method for doing what you want. Ciao.



Quite possible, but they managed to mainain the minefields throughout the war didn't they?

Since we don't have (in the game) whatever they were using to maintain the fields this seems the correct choice. Even with this they need 12 ships to maintain the fields deployed in India alone. They only have 10 Castle class ships at start and nothing on the build stocks.

Austraila needs 16 to maintain the fields, NZ needs 4. Australia has 15 available to convert and 3 ACM's at start. NZ has 5 at start and builds 10 ships during the war. Canada has no ability to maintain it's fields.

I'm open for ideas.



Don Bowen -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/26/2012 3:52:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yeah, gosh, golly, gee whiz. Maybe the Indian trawlers aren't supposed to convert into something else. Heck, I really dunno.

You got some realistic (not internet) sources that say different, be glad to tweak things for you. Otherwise, Don has a good editor method for doing what you want. Ciao.



Quite possible, but they managed to mainain the minefields throughout the war didn't they?

Since we don't have (in the game) whatever they were using to maintain the fields this seems the correct choice. Even with this they need 12 ships to maintain the fields deployed in India alone. They only have 10 Castle class ships at start and nothing on the build stocks.

Austraila needs 16 to maintain the fields, NZ needs 4. Australia has 15 available to convert and 3 ACM's at start. NZ has 5 at start and builds 10 ships during the war. Canada has no ability to maintain it's fields.

I'm open for ideas.


All I can say is the ships you want were not there historically. I have no idea how the British maintained their minefields, or even if they did. But the British Navy of World War II did not contain minefield tenders (except the three in the RAN).



PaxMondo -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/26/2012 5:53:29 AM)

It is quite possible they simply replenished them in the early war.  Then after Midway, do we even know how long the West Coast minefields were maintained?  Were they still in place in the LA basin in 1945?  I got nothing that speaks to them.  Maintaining a minefield for a port is a big hassle and really cuts down on the traffic flow in and out ...



JWE -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/26/2012 7:32:38 PM)

When this game was being developed, we purposely undertook to limit the possibility of "mines in the Pacific". The game algorithm for mine warfare is the most abstract. There was absolutely no desire, whatever, on the part of anyone, to redo it: tons of work for a minimalist reward?

There are scads of historical minefield types; controlled mines, laid mines, air-dropped mines, and they all have different stuff and we just didn't care. A minefield is a minefield. And they all decay according to the game code, even though some types of them didn't irl.

The game engine populates certain places with minefields at game start, but did those all places actually have minefields? No. So complaining about the lack of LCMs at places where there weren't any mines anyway is a bit strained. This is a strategic/tactical model of the flow of the Pacific war. You need to put mines into their proper perspective.

[ed] I truly think Don's editor tweak is the way for you to go. Will the main game ever do this? No. Will Babes ever do this? No. You want to do this, the editor flexibility is there for you.



rjopel -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/26/2012 10:14:41 PM)

What brought the whole topic up for me was the tracker listing of these conversions being available, but yet not having a single ship available for me to convert. If in fact the RN, RIN, and others never converted these ships to that mission I'm fine with not being able to do it. If the game engine puts mines at start in ports that never had them I won't worry about it. I simply thought it was a coding error in the database.

Thanks for the insight on the issues.

Ryan



Mac Linehan -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/26/2012 11:03:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

When this game was being developed, we purposely undertook to limit the possibility of "mines in the Pacific". The game algorithm for mine warfare is the most abstract. There was absolutely no desire, whatever, on the part of anyone, to redo it: tons of work for a minimalist reward?

There are scads of historical minefield types; controlled mines, laid mines, air-dropped mines, and they all have different stuff and we just didn't care. A minefield is a minefield. And they all decay according to the game code, even though some types of them didn't irl.

The game engine populates certain places with minefields at game start, but did those all places actually have minefields? No. So complaining about the lack of LCMs at places where there weren't any mines anyway is a bit strained. This is a strategic/tactical model of the flow of the Pacific war. You need to put mines into their proper perspective.

[ed] I truly think Don's editor tweak is the way for you to go. Will the main game ever do this? No. Will Babes ever do this? No. You want to do this, the editor flexibility is there for you.


JWE -

Thank You for the insight; I did wonder why mine tenders were far and few between on the Allied side of the pond. Your thoughts and comments have cleared that up. I do understand and respect the design intent of the Babes Team. If a player should choose otherwise, there is always the awesome editor.

Don - very much appreciate your input. Babes sticks with the reality, and this is a good thing.

Mac



Mac Linehan -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/26/2012 11:06:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

It is quite possible they simply replenished them in the early war.  Then after Midway, do we even know how long the West Coast minefields were maintained?  Were they still in place in the LA basin in 1945?  I got nothing that speaks to them.  Maintaining a minefield for a port is a big hassle and really cuts down on the traffic flow in and out ...


Pax -

Always appreciate your line of thought; it seems most logical.

Mac



dwg -> RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. (3/29/2012 2:43:15 AM)

There's a good summary of RN mining ops here: http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Ops-Minelaying.htm

For the Far East, mining seems to have been done initially by the DDs with minelaying conversions (they needed a day or two to switch back and forth) and a couple of impressed merchants, and other than at Hong Kong and Singapore, neither of which turned out to need a great deal of ongoing maintenance, was fairly restricted.

The same site has the war diaries for Eastern Fleet, which mention the mining operations. http://www.naval-history.net/xDKWD-EF1941ChinaStation.htm http://www.naval-history.net/xDKWD-EF1942.htm

There's part of a document on Australian minelaying here: http://www.navyhistory.org.au/ran-minelaying-effort-during-ww2/ It doesn't cover ops, but the title does seem to indicate that Bungaree was Australia's only minelayer, which presumably indicates efforts were fairly limited.

(Another interesting find at the Naval History site is http://www.naval-history.net/xBW-RNNavalParties.htm which lists RN Naval Parties - everything from COPP special forces doing covert beach survey to Port Parties)




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6875