Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Da Babes Mod

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Da Babes Mod Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/17/2009 4:36:11 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
All right, all you Da Babes level historians - I am looking for detailed data on two small ships that were (at least partially) converted to tankers:

George F Downey was a World War I Laker, converted to a tanker and used by the US Army to move fuel to and around the Alaskan sector.
Nootka was a Canadian built ship, also on the Great Lakes, converted to carry some fuel and used by the British Columbia Coastal Service to support West Coast ports.

I am looking for ship's fuel and endurance, cargo capacities (liquid and bulk) and any armament data. Can you help?

Nootka still indeterminate, but ...
George F. Downey - Standard USSB Design 1074, built Saginaw S.B.Co., started as Lake Gardeau - yard # 147, completed April, 1921 as Lake Miraflores, for Stanley Hiller, Inc., sold Santa Cruz Oil Co, 1931. Converted to bulk oil carrier - no change to registration data - 2702 gross register, 1672 net register.

Looks like an ordinary Lake type. 1700 metric bulk cargo, could probably work as a Union Coastal with 1800 metric liquid.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 181
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/17/2009 4:55:43 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		Woof! Nootka - built 1919, Pt.Arthur S.B.Co. for Canada Pacific RR Co., never converted to carry bulk liquid - remeasured in 1943 after engine rebuild and still lists orlop platform deck, forward; had to have carried fuel in containers. Skoosh smaller than a Lake - 251' between perps, about 2070 gross register, 1200 net register, and about 1650 under deck.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 182
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/17/2009 10:05:37 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Pretty much agree but at: http://members.shaw.ca/gcsimpson/cprfleet7.htm


In 1925 she was renamed "Emperor of Port McNicoll" and sailed the eastern seaboard, Montreal, Newfoundland, Sidney. In 1926 she was bought by the Canadian Pacific, and brought a load of steel loaded at Sidney Nova Scotia and sailed via the Panama Canal toVancouver. Here she was converted from Coal to Oil fired boilers, and fitted with 171000 Gal. cargo tanks to serve the Pilchard industry. Nov. 12, 1950 was sold to Erique Echecopar, Lima Peru, again renamed "Iqitos". In 1957 she was taken over by Comerico Amazonas, Lima Peru, and got her old name "Nootka" back. She was broken up in Peru in 1960.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 183
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/17/2009 10:09:46 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


All right, all you Da Babes level historians - I am looking for detailed data on two small ships that were (at least partially) converted to tankers:

George F Downey was a World War I Laker, converted to a tanker and used by the US Army to move fuel to and around the Alaskan sector.
Nootka was a Canadian built ship, also on the Great Lakes, converted to carry some fuel and used by the British Columbia Coastal Service to support West Coast ports.

I am looking for ship's fuel and endurance, cargo capacities (liquid and bulk) and any armament data. Can you help?



Don, if you still are looking for coastal tanker types for Canada, you might take a second look at the "Albertolite" who seem to be operating for Canada's west coast much of the war.

http://merchantships2.tripod.com/ian/ianfergusonshomepage1.html

I also saw a reference or two to another concrete bottom ship call the "Island Carrier" that acted as a coastal tanker.

Buck

< Message edited by Buck Beach -- 12/17/2009 10:11:03 PM >

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 184
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/17/2009 10:24:29 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


All right, all you Da Babes level historians - I am looking for detailed data on two small ships that were (at least partially) converted to tankers:

George F Downey was a World War I Laker, converted to a tanker and used by the US Army to move fuel to and around the Alaskan sector.
Nootka was a Canadian built ship, also on the Great Lakes, converted to carry some fuel and used by the British Columbia Coastal Service to support West Coast ports.

I am looking for ship's fuel and endurance, cargo capacities (liquid and bulk) and any armament data. Can you help?



Don, if you still are looking for coastal tanker types for Canada, you might take a second look at the "Albertolite" who seem to be operating for Canada's west coast much of the war.

http://merchantships2.tripod.com/ian/ianfergusonshomepage1.html

I also saw a reference or two to another concrete bottom ship call the "Island Carrier" that acted as a coastal tanker.

Buck


Albertolite is on the possible list for later. Oh, and John is the man for Babes, not Don.

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 185
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/17/2009 10:29:17 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Incidentally, I too am going to take the final "babes" and make my own mod with still more detail. Only mad dogs and fools like me would ever want to play it.



And me Don, if you choose to share your version. If you are reading Keregurelen, I would be interested in what you found.

JWE, I surely understand your OOB reasoning. What I did not see is you realigning the West Coast ships you have included in accordance with this site: http://www.militarymuseum.org/MilitaruUnits7Dec.html. Relocation and assigning damage for those under repair/overhaul seems appropriate but maybe not significant in the grander view.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 186
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/17/2009 10:49:27 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline 		Oh No!!!!!!! The Neosho is still shown as the class of AO's rightly belonging to my Cimarron, oh the shame of it all (actually, no biggy).

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 187
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/17/2009 11:13:33 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline 		The British Columbia Express really should be represented in the game:

http://www.warsailors.com/singleships/britishcolexpr.html

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 188
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/18/2009 12:38:58 AM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
JWE, I surely understand your OOB reasoning. What I did not see is you realigning the West Coast ships you have included in accordance with this site: http://www.militarymuseum.org/MilitaruUnits7Dec.html. Relocation and assigning damage for those under repair/overhaul seems appropriate but maybe not significant in the grander view.

Seeing the thundering lack of interest, looks like this is going nowhere and you are on your own.

Given your comments, you probably wouldn't like it anyway.

< Message edited by JWE -- 12/18/2009 12:41:30 AM >

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 189
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/18/2009 1:31:06 AM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
JWE, I surely understand your OOB reasoning. What I did not see is you realigning the West Coast ships you have included in accordance with this site: http://www.militarymuseum.org/MilitaruUnits7Dec.html. Relocation and assigning damage for those under repair/overhaul seems appropriate but maybe not significant in the grander view.

Seeing the thundering lack of interest, looks like this is going nowhere and you are on your own.

Given your comments, you probably wouldn't like it anyway.



Whoa, what's this all about. Did I do something or say something that offended you. If so I'm sorry.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 190
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/18/2009 1:38:01 AM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


All right, all you Da Babes level historians - I am looking for detailed data on two small ships that were (at least partially) converted to tankers:

George F Downey was a World War I Laker, converted to a tanker and used by the US Army to move fuel to and around the Alaskan sector.
Nootka was a Canadian built ship, also on the Great Lakes, converted to carry some fuel and used by the British Columbia Coastal Service to support West Coast ports.

I am looking for ship's fuel and endurance, cargo capacities (liquid and bulk) and any armament data. Can you help?



Don, if you still are looking for coastal tanker types for Canada, you might take a second look at the "Albertolite" who seem to be operating for Canada's west coast much of the war.

http://merchantships2.tripod.com/ian/ianfergusonshomepage1.html

I also saw a reference or two to another concrete bottom ship call the "Island Carrier" that acted as a coastal tanker.

Buck


Albertolite is on the possible list for later. Oh, and John is the man for Babes, not Don.



I was thinking for your own mod, I had pretty much figured that this ship had been excluded for all the aforementioned reasons.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 191
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/18/2009 1:43:47 AM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


All right, all you Da Babes level historians - I am looking for detailed data on two small ships that were (at least partially) converted to tankers:

George F Downey was a World War I Laker, converted to a tanker and used by the US Army to move fuel to and around the Alaskan sector.
Nootka was a Canadian built ship, also on the Great Lakes, converted to carry some fuel and used by the British Columbia Coastal Service to support West Coast ports.

I am looking for ship's fuel and endurance, cargo capacities (liquid and bulk) and any armament data. Can you help?



Don, if you still are looking for coastal tanker types for Canada, you might take a second look at the "Albertolite" who seem to be operating for Canada's west coast much of the war.

http://merchantships2.tripod.com/ian/ianfergusonshomepage1.html

I also saw a reference or two to another concrete bottom ship call the "Island Carrier" that acted as a coastal tanker.

Buck


Albertolite is on the possible list for later. Oh, and John is the man for Babes, not Don.



Oh oh, I feel I have offended John by not directing my comments and replies to him. OK, no more Don.

Buck

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 192
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/18/2009 1:51:08 AM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

Pretty much. Just a very few last minute tweaks on da Babes Lite.

RogueUSMC has graciously offered to host the mod. We do not want to have to do rev after rev after rev (and Rogue wouldn't appreciate it either), so we want it to be tight from the get-go.

Have a Beta-Preview available. A scenario set (with full instructions) and an Art drop-in set. Available only by sending a pm or email with a valid email return address. Will address individual beta-preview concerns, but only for a limited time, so look deep. Once we go 'live', the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune begin to take on a darker aspect.

Just a teensy weensy bit of patience. A few days.

Ciao. J&D



I am replying to this post of several days ago for clarification. John, what were you looking for in a review for beta-preview concerns in the statement bolded above. You sure got me confused now.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 193
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/18/2009 2:46:57 AM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
JWE, I surely understand your OOB reasoning. What I did not see is you realigning the West Coast ships you have included in accordance with this site: http://www.militarymuseum.org/MilitaruUnits7Dec.html. Relocation and assigning damage for those under repair/overhaul seems appropriate but maybe not significant in the grander view.

Seeing the thundering lack of interest, looks like this is going nowhere and you are on your own.

Given your comments, you probably wouldn't like it anyway.

Whoa, what's this all about. Did I do something or say something that offended you. If so I'm sorry.

Oh, heavens no. Just that there is no interest in the Lite version, so we are proceeding with the Full version. It's not AI compatible and you have already said that's a bad thing for you. So this looks like a good time to get your own mod started.

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 194
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/18/2009 4:08:07 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		I have a lot of interest in the lite mod, just didn't realize until today that you had started the beta.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 195
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/18/2009 5:06:14 AM   
scottott999

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 3/5/2006
Status: offline 		John,

I'm definitely interested as well and I was real excited when I heard of your recent announcement that the Lite version was nearing completion. I'm relatively a newbie player and unfortunately I don't have nearly the knowledge of some of you more seasoned posters of the forum but this mod certainly has peaked my interest. It has me searching the net looking for historical references to the "UKI" and other vessels previously posted continuing to rise my knowledge to hopefully a point that I too can contribute on a regular basis. Based upon what I read in the forum I'm confident that it will provide hours of fun and education for me and I'm sure others as well. I certainly appreciate all of the work you and the team put into the mod and regardless of the release, I'd buy you all a beer if you are ever in the NY area just for the effort.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 196
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/18/2009 6:56:14 AM   
Splinterhead


Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline 		I'm also interested in lite, but I'm rather buried by RL right now so it didn't seem right to ask for a beta copy I can't touch for the next several months.

(in reply to scottott999)
Post #: 197
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/18/2009 11:10:44 AM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
JWE, I surely understand your OOB reasoning. What I did not see is you realigning the West Coast ships you have included in accordance with this site: http://www.militarymuseum.org/MilitaruUnits7Dec.html. Relocation and assigning damage for those under repair/overhaul seems appropriate but maybe not significant in the grander view.

Seeing the thundering lack of interest, looks like this is going nowhere and you are on your own.

Given your comments, you probably wouldn't like it anyway.

Whoa, what's this all about. Did I do something or say something that offended you. If so I'm sorry.

Oh, heavens no. Just that there is no interest in the Lite version, so we are proceeding with the Full version. It's not AI compatible and you have already said that's a bad thing for you. So this looks like a good time to get your own mod started.



Well that's a relief. I have been known to piss off some here on the board but that has been for the most part intentional. I am truely enthralled with the Mod and of course am waiting for the full version even with the warning that it isn't AI compatable to see just how badly the game will react if I try to use it in an AI situation Allied versus Japanese AI. I also may be able to port over some of the BF changes to the lite if an AI game just freezes up.

Some of the recommendations or ships mentioned I have made for the mod Allied OOB fall short on the stiffy meter, but, some might find them worthy of being included. I for example think reallocating the 12/07/1942 west coast ships to the repair facilities in accordance to the Calif Historical document and applying an amount of damage just further limits the Allied assets for this early war period.

Anyway, glad we are still cool.

Buck

BTW, should you or Andy care to elaborate on effects of the full mod's effect on the AI game, you would sure have my ears. If it is only a one sided issue (OK to use only against Japan) I have been there before with WITP and I only play against the Japanese AI. Anyway tell me what you can.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 198
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/18/2009 12:06:58 PM   
drw61


Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline 		I have a lot of interest in the lite version.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
JWE, I surely understand your OOB reasoning. What I did not see is you realigning the West Coast ships you have included in accordance with this site: http://www.militarymuseum.org/MilitaruUnits7Dec.html. Relocation and assigning damage for those under repair/overhaul seems appropriate but maybe not significant in the grander view.

Seeing the thundering lack of interest, looks like this is going nowhere and you are on your own.

Given your comments, you probably wouldn't like it anyway.

Whoa, what's this all about. Did I do something or say something that offended you. If so I'm sorry.

Oh, heavens no. Just that there is no interest in the Lite version, so we are proceeding with the Full version. It's not AI compatible and you have already said that's a bad thing for you. So this looks like a good time to get your own mod started.


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 199
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/18/2009 4:46:51 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		It's coming. Don't think we screwed anything up. Haven't seen any hick-ups in testing.

Could probably tweak things on a daily basis, but need to stop somewhere. Threw in Albertolite, Downey, Nootka, British Columbia (Express was just too long), renamed the Cimarrons, all the last minute stuff. Added in about 30 at-sea, opening day TFs. Think it's done.

Will go to Rogue USMC in the next couple days. Then back to working on the Full version.

(in reply to drw61)
Post #: 200
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/18/2009 5:32:48 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
BTW, should you or Andy care to elaborate on effects of the full mod's effect on the AI game, you would sure have my ears. If it is only a one sided issue (OK to use only against Japan) I have been there before with WITP and I only play against the Japanese AI. Anyway tell me what you can.

The AI script looks for certain things in certain slots. If things have been moved, oh well. The scenario AI designer also expects certain things to have certain capabilities (HQs having NavSup, for example). If those capabilities are somewhere else, the AI’s expectations will not be met.

The AI will continue to do what it has been told to do, and use those slots it has been told to use. If those slots, or HQs or LCUs, or whatever, are not populated in accord with the scenario AI designer’s expectations, or are not where they are supposed to be, it results in what we term an AI meltdown. Andy could probably be more specific.

The Big Babes version will have hundreds of changes to HQs, LCUs, etc., for both sides, both in slot location and content. We will try to keep things organized together, to make it easier to generate new scripts, but it will not function correctly with the stock aei-xxx.dat scripts.

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 201
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/18/2009 8:02:44 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		It does sound like it would be a great multi player game. 3 on a side would be exciting

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 202
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/18/2009 9:19:09 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		Yeah, that’s exactly what it is contemplated to do.

You could think of the AI as having 2 parts. One part (the hard coded part) lays out the field; it writes the yard markers, sets the down markers, places the ball position, and tells the umpires what to do. It makes up little base related TFs that might be good for local ASW or MS, and all sorts of housekeeping issues, that Da Babes is designed to internalize and promote.

The other part is the Play Book. That’s all script, and it all depends on the scen designer’s choice of plays. Sometimes (on very hard setting) the AI can run out of bounds, or do a forward lateral, or have everyone eligible. The code allows certain of these things for ‘hard’ or ‘very hard’ settings, but the other guy must, simply must, use his Play Book.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 203
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/20/2009 6:53:18 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		I ran some turns and now have a question, has anybody noticed a longer lag time when you click on an object? It seems to take longer look at a TF or base.

Having all the extra ships is a blessing and a curse. Love it !!!

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 204
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/20/2009 1:24:20 PM   
drw61


Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline 		I just downloaded the Da Babes lite from RogueUSMC site http://witp.tylerroguedesigns.com/new.htm
Thanks all

Daryl

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 205
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/20/2009 5:33:38 PM   
eastburn

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 8/7/2009
Status: offline 		I am very thankful for all ur work and follow this thread everyday......i believe there is more lurkers than u realize......we just the shy type

< Message edited by Hammerdamage -- 12/20/2009 5:34:06 PM >

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 206
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/20/2009 7:05:51 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hammerdamage
I am very thankful for all ur work and follow this thread everyday......i believe there is more lurkers than u realize......we just the shy type

You are very welcome Hammerdamage. Yes, lurkers are like the Oort Cloud. Much more mass, in aggregate, than in our little system, and supremely important in the great scheme of things. If the gravity well ever hits ya, and you want to be a comet, don't be shy; c'mon down. Most of us are just ordinary folks.

(in reply to eastburn)
Post #: 207
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/20/2009 7:17:38 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
It has come to my attention that the Babes mod has been posted as Dons Babies Mod and I have been given all the credit. Not so! JWE and I work on this together, with him doing almost all the work. Let's hear it for JWE!

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 208
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/20/2009 7:23:38 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		JWE is the man, Don gets the mod name ;)

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 209
RE: Da Babes Mod - 12/20/2009 7:24:57 PM   
drw61


Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline 		JWE and Don both have done a wonderful job with this! Thanks for all the hard work

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Da Babes Mod Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.094