DaBigBabes Beta errata

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

DaBigBabes Beta errata

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 >> DaBigBabes Beta errata

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/16/2010 7:02:17 PM

Don Bowen

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

British LCT(R) are incorrectly classed as LCT(8). My fault and found just too late to be fixed for the beta.

Post #: 1

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/18/2010 8:23:33 PM

JWE

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

Fixed. That was easy. Still working on the armor stuff.

Ok, well tried the 1 Tk = 2 Tks thing and it didn�t work too well. Nerfed the assault value of the Armored units too much; so, back to the drawing board.

Issue is that, originally, game Load Costs for AFV/Vehicles was their combat weight. This is problematic in terms of unit troop count for places like Atolls. Your average M4 Tank Bn will have about 60 AFVs, so troop count is about 1380 against an actual of 750. But the unit also needs Sup, which adds another 810 troops, so the unit actually counts out as 2190, which is 3x actuals. Makes it difficult to put a Combat Regt, a Tk Bn, and an Arty Bn onto an Atoll, without over-stacking.

There is no real reason to set AFV LCs to their combat weight. LC is a game abstraction that has implications for both loading and troop count � occasionally, mutually exclusive. Ship load factors automatically multiply all AFV and Vehicle LCs by 3 to calculate their �effective� load costs, so a useful algorithm can be devised that gives a more reasonable troop count, but results in an �effective� load cost equal to or greater than the device�s combat weight. Weight is a consideration, of course, but in loading ships, footprint is of concern (a GMC truck takes up as much hold space as a Sherman, and more than a Stuart).

So .. we are looking at a mix of footprint and crew size to give things more of a central tendency. Looking at Sqrt(Wt) + crew size to model both the footprint and troop count parameters. So an M4 Sherman (original LC of 23) goes to 10, which gives a much better troop count, but still �effectively� loads at 30. An M3 Stuart (original LC of 11) goes to 8, which gives a much better troop count, but still �effectively� loads at 24.

Given all this, the average M4 Tk Bn, will now have troop count of 680, plus roughly 700 Sup, for about half the original, and �reasonably� close to the actuals. It will load at about 4150 cargo total, so will fit on one big cargo ship � as it did.

So far, looks reasonable.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 2

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/19/2010 1:09:34 AM

drw61

Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

This is really insignificant but the West Coast naval base units can load into an amphibious TF.
Numbers 5005 San Diego USN, 5006, 5011, 5012 ...
maybe because the restricted Naval Districts are not restricted permanent?

Also, should Asiatic Fleet's (142) devices be set up the same as the rest of the naval districts? (81 Support, 36 Aviation and 81 Naval) I read some ware it was the Sixteenth Naval District

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 3

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/19/2010 1:22:39 AM

Kitakami

Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline

I may be totally wrong in this, but device # 715... shouldn't it be "Observer Squad" instead of "Observor Squad"?

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to drw61)

Post #: 4

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/19/2010 3:49:24 PM

JWE

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami
I may be totally wrong in this, but device # 715... shouldn't it be "Observer Squad" instead of "Observor Squad"?

I don�t know. They are all spelled that way. Andy did those, so maybe that�s how they spell it in Scotland.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drw61
This is really insignificant but the West Coast naval base units can load into an amphibious TF.
Numbers 5005 San Diego USN, 5006, 5011, 5012 ... maybe because the restricted Naval Districts are not restricted permanent?

Maybe so. But we did want some units assigned to Naval Districts to be mobile. Think the best way to fix that is to put a static garrison device into the units we don�t want have move.

quote:

Also, should Asiatic Fleet's (142) devices be set up the same as the rest of the naval districts? (81 Support, 36 Aviation and 81 Naval) I read some ware it was the Sixteenth Naval District

No. Asiatic Fleet is different. Naval Districts are administrative HQs for places with big time Naval Bases. Asiatic Fleet is an operational HQ, and Cavite wasn�t that big.

Anybody have any alternative thoughts for the armor thing?

(in reply to Kitakami)

Post #: 5

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/20/2010 7:46:25 PM

JWE

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

Different people did different things with warship weapons. Most went for irl launcher numbers, but were either light or heavy on ammo to give �some� ships their irl DC load out, and �some� ships their �effective DC loadout. However, both the �launcher� and �ammo� numbers are inconsistent among Nationalities, and don�t quite play in accord with the rules/desires of the combat algorithm.

So Japanese ships typically have a gazillion launchers (as irl) and a gazillion ammo for certain launchers (as irl) that totals out to the irl DCs carried. Allied ships typically have fewer launchers, and much smaller ammo than irl. So an Ukuru escort can DC from 9 launchers with ammo 15, while a Bristol can DC from 6 launchers with ammo 4 and Buckley can shoot from 10 launchers with ammo 4. So that�s kinda, roughly 135 vs 24 or 40.

Now the ASW �rating� is the number of launchers, so maybe they are close in that regard, but one must also look at how many times they can launch (how many times the �rating� is applied to the algorithm). It�s a power law thing.

Understand the imperative of giving every ship it�s exact and specific historical weapons, but maybe the game engine requires a bit of abstraction in order to function properly.

We have a USNR Lt, from San Diego, who wants to push this. She got an engineering degree from Tufts, so it�s likely she can do math: besides, she likes things that go boom. Won�t take a lot after she gets her stuff together, so would ya�ll like that, or should we back off and let things sit as they are?

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 6

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/20/2010 8:08:37 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Always fun to see somebody else's take on this stuff... Let her in, John.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 7

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/20/2010 8:18:41 PM

chesmart

Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline

Agreed with Terminus if you think she can help make your Mod better let her in.

Question What do you call a Female "Grognard" ?

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 8

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/20/2010 8:21:53 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Grogneuse?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to chesmart)

Post #: 9

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/20/2010 8:22:09 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Maybe a Grognette?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 10

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/20/2010 8:41:51 PM

chesmart

Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline

I like "Grognette"

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 11

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/20/2010 8:46:09 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Let Grogina have a shot.

(in reply to chesmart)

Post #: 12

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/20/2010 9:09:47 PM

JWE

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200
Question What do you call a Female "Grognard" ?�

You call her 'Ma'am'.

Jennifer Nelson, Lt USNR, FISC USNB San Diego. Jenny was a collegiate All American sailor at Tufts (go look it up, you'll find her). She's been my second helm since Sargon was a corporal. 5' 4", blonde, blue eyes, just a sweetie; but called her 'honey' once, and my nads ain't been the same since. Ooh yeah, we got a winner here, folks.

(in reply to chesmart)

Post #: 13

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/20/2010 9:11:45 PM

chesmart

Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline

Ma'am Grognette ?

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 14

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/20/2010 9:12:27 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200
Question What do you call a Female "Grognard" ?�

You call her 'Ma'am'.

Jennifer Nelson, Lt USNR, FISC USNB San Diego. Jenny was a collegiate All American sailor at Tufts (go look it up, you'll find her). She's been my second helm since Sargon was a corporal. 5' 4", blonde, blue eyes, just a sweetie; but called her 'honey' once, and my nads ain't been the same since. Ooh yeah, we got a winner here, folks.

Sounds like a winner John. But there's still that "R".

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 15

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/20/2010 9:18:52 PM

Herrbear

Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline

Question on class 821 LCT(R). Ammo columns for weapon device 1767 shows 00. Is this correct or should it be 01?

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 16

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/20/2010 9:53:54 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Question on class 821 LCT(R). Ammo columns for weapon device 1767 shows 00. Is this correct or should it be 01?

Dat's a whoops!

(in reply to Herrbear)

Post #: 17

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/22/2010 3:03:41 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

I just noticed the 2nd marine division is available on Dec 7, was this intended?

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 18

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/22/2010 4:46:34 PM

JWE

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45
I just noticed the 2nd marine division is available on Dec 7, was this intended?

Nope not intended. Yikes. The 2, 6, 8 Marines should point to 2nd MarDiv, not 1st. And I see we've lost 1, 5, 7 Marines in the move. Ok, will fix.

Thank you.

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 19

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/26/2010 2:10:01 PM

drw61

Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

Slot 953 Aus Inf Section upgrades to 954, which is blank

Slot 957 Aus Cmbt Eng Sect should not upgrade to 958 Aus Amph Eng

Slot 1114 USA Recce Squad upgrades to 000 should be slot 1115

Thanks, Daryl

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 20

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/26/2010 5:03:38 PM

Weidi72

Posts: 61
Joined: 6/10/2006
Status: offline

The "new divisions" in Chungking are combined to the 93 chinese division. Shouldn't this be corps?

(in reply to drw61)

Post #: 21

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/26/2010 6:41:57 PM

JWE

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: drw61
Slot 953 Aus Inf Section upgrades to 954, which is blank
Slot 957 Aus Cmbt Eng Sect should not upgrade to 958 Aus Amph Eng
Slot 1114 USA Recce Squad upgrades to 000 should be slot 1115

Thanks, Daryl

No, thank YOU, Daryl. All fixed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Weidi72
The "new divisions" in Chungking are combined to the 93 chinese division. Shouldn't this be corps?

Quite right, off by one number - should combine to 66th Chinese Corps. Thanks

(in reply to drw61)

Post #: 22

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/27/2010 1:31:12 PM

Weidi72

Posts: 61
Joined: 6/10/2006
Status: offline

Greymouth Base Forc (6228) is an australian unit with aus inf sec. Shouldn't it be NZ?�

Same with Invercargill (6227)

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 23

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/27/2010 8:24:00 PM

JWE

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

We are down to final cleanup, and thought to take the opportunity to show some things in data form. The new TO&Es and device LoadCost values seem to be working as anticipated. Here is a grid of different division and regiment types showing troop count., loadcost and assault.

You can see that Japan is infantry heavy and also has higher assault values than the Allies. Conversely, the Allies are gun/vehicle heavy � men vs firepower. A nice thing to note is that US divisions load (on average) about 20% harder than Japanese divisions (which are generally larger to begin with). This is right on target with Turner�s analysis (and post-war conclusions) that a Japanese division required 20%less lift than an equivalent US division.

Further, given a basic AP/APA and an 80% assault cargo capacity (1500 troops and 2400 cargo), the average USMC division would require 8 ships for lift. Adding in the Para Bn, the Raider Bn, the Tk Bn, and the AmphTrac Bn (which are provided separately in DBB) you get 12, which is exactly what transpired at Guad and what was the standard divisional lift basis (3 TransRons, each of 3x AP/APA and 1x AK/AKA). And the Army fits the paradigm too. Woof!

Given Japan�s lower total LC, and the 2x troop cross load into cargo, Japan could lift an equivalent division with 6-7 equivalent ships (1600 troops, 2500 cargo). Woof, woof!.

With the new AFV LCs, the armored division is only a tad heavy on troop count (12800 vs 10400 actual), but loads nicely at 2/3 higher cost, but combat load on 9 AK/AKAs (as they did). Woof, woof, woof!

Looking at regiments: Troop count ranges from 3600 to 4300, so they are an easy fit on Atolls. One can add 2 or 3 supporting combat elements, such as Tk Bns, Arty Bns, Cmbt Eng Bns, Defense Bns (all in the 700 to 1200 troop count range) without violating stacking constraints.

Anyway, almost there � just thought ya�ll might want to see this.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 24

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/27/2010 9:26:49 PM

chesmart

Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline

Wow simply Wow John the amount of detail you and don are putting in Da Babes is impressive.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 25

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/27/2010 9:30:53 PM

Central Blue

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline

I hope this doesn't turn out the way my last comment did

Early days in and I have noticed that the following arrive in the game at their 1943 (or later) maxed-out size: VB-6, VF-6, VT-6, VF-3, VT-3, VT-2, VT-6, and VMSB-24.

I am also curious about the restricted nature of the Forward Air CenPac HQ, patrol planes arriving on the east coast can transfer to Canada, but no place else in North America. Maybe I should just transfer them to Canada and then see where I can go from there? Clicky-clicky first, questions later.

_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 26

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/27/2010 10:12:41 PM

JWE

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

Airgroup stuff comes from the Air people. We aren't smart enough to dink with that by ourselves.

It is the same as in stock, so no harm, no foul. Maybe if there is an issue you may want to talk to the Air people, yes?

(in reply to Central Blue)

Post #: 27

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/28/2010 12:20:03 AM

Kitakami

Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline

Great going Joe! Waitying for the final version with much anticipation :)

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 28

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/28/2010 12:56:25 AM

Central Blue

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Airgroup stuff comes from the Air people. We aren't smart enough to dink with that by ourselves.

It is the same as in stock, so no harm, no foul. Maybe if there is an issue you may want to talk to the Air people, yes?

thanks John. So I take that to mean no folks on the Babes project are fiddling with air units. Which makes sense since there was no problem with Babe's Lite.

Maybe something with the beta patch then. I'll check out stock 1 when I feel like taking a break from this great new mod some folks cooked up. If I find something I'll bug somebody else.

Feels like there have been some changes in the Chinese ground units and leaders. Or maybe I'm finally learning how to use them better.

I can see where it's going to take some thinking on how to get those big honking naval bases going in the Pacific. But you sure could have a lot of little ones if you wanted.

Congrats to you and Don and the gang.

_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 29

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 6/28/2010 3:34:25 AM

JWE

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

Didn't fiddle with airgroups. Added a few so the Commencement Bay class could carry the USMC CAS CAGs, and a couple Navy CAS CAGs, but that about it. Oh yeah, a couple CAGs for the late '45 arriving Essex's, but that's it I swear.

Didn't touch the Chinese, except to compact them a bit.

Did find a problem with ComAirSoPac, CenPac, FwdAirCen, FMFPac, and FleetAirWest. They all got permanent restricted - mistakenly. All fixed now. (slots 6776 thru 6780).

Ciao

(in reply to Central Blue)

Post #: 30