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: More DBB

 
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: More DBB Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: More DBB - 7/28/2016 3:44:23 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		John told me there are still some hard core AE people who use the scenarios as a professional lexicon. I guess I owe it to them to do the background for the paradigm.

The game engine gives hard coded advantages to the KB (an IJN ACTF with 4 to 6 CVs). There is also a special, IJN only, KB auto-build option available to the AI for auto ACTF builds under script. While useful in achieving reasonable results for the PH attack, it is neither strategically nor tactically appropriate for continuing situations. The original implementation of the ACTF rule was to avoid some of the hard coded advantages given to the KB. It cannot over-ride the AI, so if using the AI for routine tasks, keep aware and split up any KB that may have been auto built.

Working with the rule highlights some considerations and problems faced by naval commanders of the time and the evolution of their solutions; it shows the advantage of mass (without code interference), coupled with the advantage of dispersion and flexibility. It also highlights some of the significant difficulties that both sides faced; the difficulties of inter-TF operational concert, communication (or lack thereof), inter-group weapon loadout / mission differentiation / flight ops timing.

I am having fascinating discussions on this subject with some of my naval colleagues on my floor, here. It appears that the fundamental nature of the Navy is being transformed and the Naval War College is in the throes of redefining naval doctrine to accommodate the new strategic and technological imperatives, using much the same critical approach to much the same considerations. I have it, on good authority, that there is a distinct possibility they may get some of it right this time. (put smiley grin, here)

Matt

< Message edited by US87891 -- 7/28/2016 4:01:19 PM >

(in reply to Mac Linehan)
Post #: 31
RE: More DBB - 7/28/2016 5:07:47 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		The hard-coded KB advantage you refer to is the rule about CV strike coordination, where the IJ get a higher ceiling for most of the way, right?

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 32
RE: More DBB - 7/28/2016 5:49:41 PM   
DanSez


Posts: 1023
Joined: 2/5/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

I think of rules as one might think of rules in a miniatures situation. AE is a computer game and many people think that a computer will handle every and all situation that comes up, and if you can do something that the computer allows, it is valid, because who's to say. In a miniatures fleet problem, what's to prevent someone from simply picking up the models of a BC division and placing it 2000y from the opposing carriers and start rolling dice. Nothing. The rules are silent on that kind of behavior. So just because a computer program allows something doesn't mean that it is valid either.

+1 Billion
Thank you for so clearly defining the need for HRs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891
.. .. Air Combat Task Forces
The TF composition can vary by time period. An ACTF has a maximum of 2 aircraft carriers (of any type) until 1/43, when it may have a maximum of 3, with a further maximum restriction of 2x CVA and 1x CVL. Multiple ACTFs may operate in the same hex, and in concert, but may not be combined into a TF with a CV count >2 (or 3, post 1/43). The rule is based on USN and IJN operational concepts of Carrier Division (CarDiv) and Task Force/Group composition and leadership.
ACTFs are not interoperable by nationality. A US ACTF must only comprise US carriers. Likewise a UK ACTF must only comprise UK carriers. Different nationality ACTFs may operate in the same hex, and in concert, but they must maintain their national internal identity. Both doctrinal and logistic incompatibilities require this rule.


Interesting comments. I negociated a set of HRs similar to this with an opponent using RA8.1 but only wish to support and encourage your effort, not side-track with a discussion of the larger issue of 'HRs/no HRs'. Some players do not like them.

Thanks again


(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 33
RE: More DBB - 7/28/2016 6:22:01 PM   
witpqs


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

not side-track with a discussion of the larger issue of 'HRs/no HRs'. Some players do not like them.

In the interest of *not* side-tracking (as you note), I'll make this one comment.

I am of the few or no HR ilk, because most all HRs are with the notion that "the game is broken" and this or that just doesn't work fairly (whoever the speaker is defines that).

What Matt posted above is totally different and I like them very much. Wouldn't mind at all if the game engine were altered to them (might not be possible for some of them).

A prior example is the discussion that JWE fostered about transporting fuel via xAK. Haven't done it since then. To be fair, the original versions of the game scenarios did not have all the ancillary ships to make some things possible/practical in the game so I am not commenting on the fact that many people probably still do so, but Babes and derivatives have cured (or largely cured?) the lack of ship types and numbers.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to DanSez)
Post #: 34
RE: More DBB - 7/28/2016 11:19:02 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DanSez


quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

I think of rules as one might think of rules in a miniatures situation. AE is a computer game and many people think that a computer will handle every and all situation that comes up, and if you can do something that the computer allows, it is valid, because who's to say. In a miniatures fleet problem, what's to prevent someone from simply picking up the models of a BC division and placing it 2000y from the opposing carriers and start rolling dice. Nothing. The rules are silent on that kind of behavior. So just because a computer program allows something doesn't mean that it is valid either.

+1 Billion
Thank you for so clearly defining the need for HRs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891
.. .. Air Combat Task Forces
The TF composition can vary by time period. An ACTF has a maximum of 2 aircraft carriers (of any type) until 1/43, when it may have a maximum of 3, with a further maximum restriction of 2x CVA and 1x CVL. Multiple ACTFs may operate in the same hex, and in concert, but may not be combined into a TF with a CV count >2 (or 3, post 1/43). The rule is based on USN and IJN operational concepts of Carrier Division (CarDiv) and Task Force/Group composition and leadership.
ACTFs are not interoperable by nationality. A US ACTF must only comprise US carriers. Likewise a UK ACTF must only comprise UK carriers. Different nationality ACTFs may operate in the same hex, and in concert, but they must maintain their national internal identity. Both doctrinal and logistic incompatibilities require this rule.


Interesting comments. I negociated a set of HRs similar to this with an opponent using RA8.1 but only wish to support and encourage your effort, not side-track with a discussion of the larger issue of 'HRs/no HRs'. Some players do not like them.

Thanks again




Plus 1

I have just, today, finished Ian Toll's "Pacific Crucible: The War at Sea in the Pacific 1941 - 1945".

Absolutely Outstanding; the detailed OPS descriptions giving (in my opinion), validity to Matt's (and the Babes Team) guidance and restrictions on TF compositions.

Mac

< Message edited by Mac Linehan -- 7/28/2016 11:20:24 PM >

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to DanSez)
Post #: 35
RE: More DBB - 7/29/2016 5:52:49 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		That is really encouraging Mac. After my retirement, I spent several years teaching Military Science courses at Norwich, Tufts, and TAMU. The students were always attentive, but every now and again, one would grab me after class and say "Why". It is those discussions that make me realize why I did this in the first place.

You go, boy.

[ed] Absorb all you can. But don't make the mistake of only considering those texts that confirm your own notions. Views from the other side often highlight certain facts that deserve mature consideration. Regardless of the outcome, critical analysis is key. You seem to be on the right path.

Matt


< Message edited by US87891 -- 7/30/2016 12:45:45 AM >

(in reply to Mac Linehan)
Post #: 36
RE: More DBB - 7/30/2016 4:56:07 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		All right then, some Ground Units

Ground units have been broken down into the constituent elements necessary for a battalion level game scenario. The highest echelon is the Regiment/Brigade (3x Inf Bn equivalents). Regiments/Brigades do not include slices of DivArty, Recce, Eng; these are separate and distinct units. Some regiments/brigades have been initially broken down to battalion level, but these may recombine normally. Likewise, some battalions have been initially broken down to company level. These too may recombine normally. Only recombination is allowed and, once performed, is final.

For these scenarios, the AE game engine does not allow units at regiment/brigade echelon level, or smaller, to break down. This shall not be circumvented. The intentional creation of fragments to obtain any form of operational advantage is not allowed. If you are on Bolshoi Detsi or LesGrosBébés, umpire call.

Notional divisions exist as a Div HQ unit, with all the separate, subordinate units reporting thereto. Div HQ is home to the Commander and provides combat advantages (radius-1) depending on his specs. Div HQ also contains a large quantity of division support. The division HQ can only add its support to other units when all are co-located at a base.

Combat is wearing, fatigue and disruption grow rapidly. Combat units intentionally do not have enough integral support squads for long-term, high-intensity combat. Maintenance of reserves, front line rotation scheduling, periodic relief to a base camp, and awareness of the need for eventual withdrawal to a main base area for rest and reconstitution, is strongly recommended.

Different nations treated constituent regiment/brigade assignment to division echelon differently.
.. UK/AUS/NZ/IND Brigades were fungible (as were their own constituent Bns). These Brigades may freely change the DivHQ to which they are assigned.
.. US Army Regiments (and ancillary constituent units) are not fungible and belong to their parent DivHQ. They should neither be reassigned to another DivHQ, nor stray very far from their own. Umpire call if needs absolutely must.
.. USMC Regiments (and ancillary constituents) are quasi-fungible. Marine Regiments (infantry and/or artillery) from one MarDiv may be temporarily assigned to another for operational control, but they retain their parent division assignment identity.
.. IJA Regiments were fungible in the abstract sense. Nominally, they belonged to their parent DivHQ, but were often split out (perhaps with a vestigial brigade HQ element) for independent operations.

Base Forces: These are the hardest units to define because the nominal AE/AI code adjusts their contents to conform to AI requirements without regard to anything else. It will eventually skew the game. If you are on Bolshoi Detsi or LesGrosBébés you are ok, but if on nominal AE, serious caution and constant attention is urged. Umpire intervention will happen.
There are several kinds:
.. Allied Base Forces are tactical, land/sea/air support and control organizations. They do not provide HQ type infrastructure support. These are nominal BF designated Eng units in the scenario.
.. IJN “Special” Base Forces are tactical, sea area, control organizations, not having a significant naval HQ function. They had a congeries of boats and light patrol units, and a variable number of Naval Guard Units. These are nominal BF designated Eng units in the scenario
.. IJN Base Forces are Naval HQ units acting in loco parentis for their corresponding Fleet HQ, with component CD/AA Units, Port Units, Sub Base Units, Constr Units. They had tactical control over a variable number of Naval Guard Units.

Adaptive use of restriction is made. See individual scenario requirements.

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 37
RE: More DBB - 7/30/2016 11:28:08 PM   
AlessandroD


Posts: 381
Joined: 12/28/2014
From: Italy
Status: offline 		Can't wait to play this babe

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 38
RE: More DBB - 7/31/2016 4:26:32 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		Thanks for your interest. It should be a fun scenario.

The Japanese OOB is cleaned up and ready. Be aware, the scenario premise is Op SF, where Japan tries to eat an elephant with a pitifully small set of chopsticks. A foregone conclusion is that she may achieve some initial objectives, and may achieve and retain naval superiority for a time, but the worm will turn and the Allies will return the favor in the Solomons and New Guinea in spades. So the Japanese reinforcement schedule takes this into account. There is an 'uh oh!' in August that sparks a further infusion of strength, and a big 'oh, crap!' in October. Unfortunately, the ebb and flow of the scenario sometimes makes the reinforce schedule somewhat strained and arbitrary. Sadly, the AE system does not have the ability to advance and/or retard introductions in ongoing games, depending on circumstances. Some adjustments can be made, but would like to have those suggestions come from people who have played the scenario.

Without further ado, here's the red team.

Japanese Administrative/Ground/Air Forces
Garrison and Holding Forces
IJN and IJA Forces

1st Southern Expeditionary Fleet: - VAdm. Jisaburo Ozawa, Saigon (PermR)
.. .. Off-map/Not Included in this scenario

2nd Southern Expeditionary Fleet: - VAdm. Shiro Takasu, Soerabaja (PermR)
16th Army: - LtG Hitoshi Imamura, Makassar (PermR)
.. 21, 22, 23, 24, Special Base Forces (+component AA, CD, BF Avn Sup Units) (PermR)
.. .. 5x Bns IJN Naval Guard Units (PermR)
.. .. 7x Bns IJA Garrison Inf Units (PermR)
.. .. 6x Equiv Bns IJA Inf (in 2x Inf Rgts), +1x Indep Arty Bn (PermR)
.. .. 3x Avn Sup Bns IJA (PermR)
.. .. 4x Avn Sup Bns IJN (Free)

3rd Southern Expeditionary Fleet: - VAdm. Rokuzo Sugiyama, Manila (PermR)
14th Army: - LtG Masaharu Homma, Manila (PermR)
.. 30, 31, 32, 35 Special Base Forces (+component AA, CD, BF Avn Sup Units) (PermR)
.. .. 5x Bns IJN Naval Guard Units (PermR)
.. .. 2x Bns IJN Naval Constr Units (PermR)
.. .. 9x Equiv Bns IJA Inf (in 3x Inf Rgts) of 30th Inf Div, + Div HQ, 3x DivArty Bns (PermR)

Operational Forces
IJN Forces

4th Fleet: - VAdm. Shigeyoshi Inoue, Truk (Free)
.. 4, 5, 6, Base Force HQ (+component AA, CD, BF Nav/Avn Sup Units) (PermR)
.. .. 10x Bns IJN Naval Guard Units (TempR)

8th Fleet: - VAdm. Gunichi Mikawa, Rabaul (Free)
.. 8th Base Force HQ (+component AA, CD, Nav Sup Units) (PermR)
.. .. 1,7 Special Base Units (TempR)
.. .. 5x Bns IJN Naval Guard Units (TempR)

11th Air Fleet: - VAdm. Nishizo Tsukahara, Rabaul (Free)
.. 24th Air Flotilla HQ, Kwajalein (Free)
.. .. 6x Equiv Bns IJN Avn Sup (Free)
.. 25th Air Flotilla HQ, Rabaul (Free)
.. .. 7x Equiv Bns IJN Avn Sup (Free)
.. 26th Air Flotilla HQ, Saipan (4208 Reinforcement) (Free)
.. .. 4x Equiv Bns IJN Avn Sup (Free)
.. 21st Air Flotilla HQ, Babeldaob (4209 Reinforcement) (Free)
.. .. 4x Equiv Bns IJN Avn Sup (Free)

.. 12x Bns IJN SNLF (6x at start, 2x on 4207, 4x periodic reinforcement)
.. 17x Bns IJN Naval Constr Units (2x at start, 7x in 4207, 8x periodic reinforcement)
.. 17x Bns AA Units (7x at start, 2x on 4207, 8x periodic reinforcement)

Operational Forces
IJA Forces

17th Army HQ: - LtG Harukichi Hyakutake, Rabaul
.. So Seas group HQ, Horii – Begins 420601 – Rabaul
.. .. 6x Bns IJA Inf (in 2x Inf Rgts), +1x Arty Bn
.. 35th Brigade Grp HQ, Kawaguchi – Begins 420601 – Babeldaob
.. .. 6x Bns IJA Inf (in 2x Inf Rgts), +1x Arty Bn
.. 2nd Inf Div HQ, Maruyama – Begins 420601 – Davao
.. .. 9x Bns IJA Inf (in 3x Inf Rgts) + Recce Bn, 3x DivArty Bns
.. 38th Inf Div HQ, Sano – Arrives 420627 – Davao
.. .. 9x Bns IJA Inf (in 3x Inf Rgts) + 3x DivArty Bns
.. 21st Brigade Grp HQ, Yamagata – Arrives 420812 – Davao
.. .. 3x Bns IJA Inf (of 107th Inf Rgt), +1x Arty Bn
.. 6th Inf Div HQ, Kanda – Arrives 420912 – Davao
.. .. 9x Bns IJA Inf (in 3x Inf Rgts) + Recce Bn, 3x DivArty Bns
.. 65th Brigade Grp HQ, Naka – Arrives 421006 – Davao
.. .. 6x Bns IJA Inf (in 2x Inf Rgts), +1x Arty Bn

18th Army HQ: - LtG Hatazo Adachi, Wewak (421109 reinforcement)
.. 51st Inf Div HQ, Nakano – Arrives 420811 – Babeldaob
.. .. 9x Bns IJA Inf (in 3x Inf Rgts) + Recce Bn, 3x DivArty Bns
.. 20th Inf Div HQ, Katagiri – Arrives 421118 – Davao
.. .. 9x Bns IJA Inf (in 3x Inf Rgts) + Recce Bn, 3x DivArty Bns
.. 41st Inf Div HQ, Mano – Arrives 421212 – Babeldaob
.. .. 9x Bns IJA Inf (in 3x Inf Rgts) + Recce Bn, 3x DivArty Bns

.. 6th Air Div HQ: - LtG Giichi Itahana, Wewak (421125 reinforcement)

.. 14x Bns IJA Eng/Constr Units (6x at start, 8x periodic reinforcement)
.. 10x IJA Ship/Port Eng Units (1x at start, 9x periodic reinforcement)
.. 23x Bns IJA Mortar/Rapid Fire/Arty (1x at start, 3x in 4208, 19x periodic reinforcement)
.. 7x IJA Avn Sup Units (1x at start, 6x periodic reinforcement)

(in reply to AlessandroD)
Post #: 39
RE: More DBB - 8/1/2016 4:46:12 AM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline 		Matt-

Thank You for the kind words and encouragement.

Am now on Toll, Volume 2, The Conquering Tide. Am beginning to realize that all past books read or waiting in my library are a good starting point; but Toll's extensive notes and source references demonstrate the systematic, in depth study required to really understand and comprehend the subject. As noted, the Forum book list is a good start; will be sure to also review the source notes in the books I already have on hand.

I suspect that I should start with books that give the big picture- new and old (i.e. "Eagle Against the Sun", and Toland's "The Rising Sun", for example).

And:

Even with this first, small step (Toll), my appreciation for the depth of research and thought that went into AE- design and coding that allows the scenario designers and players to conform (within limits) to the realities and limits faced by historical commanders- has only grown.

Was on a real life Rafting Trip (support Bus Driver- my summer job) for the past three days; as I read each evening, the desire to play, learn and experiment was overwhelming... <grin>

Cricket Mac

< Message edited by Mac Linehan -- 8/1/2016 4:48:00 AM >

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 40
RE: More DBB - 8/1/2016 9:35:27 PM   
chemkid

 

Posts: 1238
Joined: 12/15/2012
Status: offline 		.

< Message edited by chemkid -- 4/25/2018 11:37:20 AM >

(in reply to Mac Linehan)
Post #: 41
RE: More DBB - 8/4/2016 6:48:55 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		The Allied forces are behaving nicely, not much to adjust. I found some notes on Australian infrastructure that might be worth detailing in the rule book to enable one to better understand the different command lines and restriction requirements of the scenario.

John did a very capable job of defining command flow and the use of restriction types for both HQs and Units. Australian organizational structure was a constantly changing and slippery character, and this time period proved the rule. There was a rational freeze point for purposes of designing this scenario. Names, dates, assignments are plausible. Attempts were made to keep it as historical as possible, but within the parameters of the design. This is, after all, a scenario. Please feel free to use the editor.

Australia Command: - Blamey, Canberra - Command (PermR)
.. North Australia Command - Army (PermR)
.. West Australia Command - Army (PermR)
.. Australian 1st Army - Army (PermR) – Queensland, No. NSW
.. Australian 2nd Army - Army (PermR) – Central & So. NSW, Victoria, So. Aus, Tasmania

.. .. Australian I Corps - Corps (TempR)
.. .. Australian II Corps - Corps (TempR)

Allied Land Forces: - Vasey, Brisbane - Command (no restrict)
.. .. New Guinea Force - Corps (no restrict)

Australian I and II Corps are ‘swing transfer’ corps. They are part of 1st and 2nd Army command line structure, so any deployable units belonging to Army can transfer to I or II Corps on the cheap. Then the HQs deploy to ALF or NGF and there you are. Dump the units and go home to repeat the process, or, in the case of I Corps, maybe hang around and take NGF units under command. The flexibility is quite functional.

Next post is how the individual units relate to their restrictions and how some can free themselves but many cannot.

Matt


< Message edited by US87891 -- 8/4/2016 7:21:32 PM >

(in reply to chemkid)
Post #: 42
RE: More DBB - 8/11/2016 5:08:23 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		Given the rules for Amph TFs, thought it good to say why.

The Japanese paradigm was different from ours. Ships were temporarily converted to host troops in the cargo section, but that did not make them assault ready. The Japanese paradigm was to have designated ships serve as landing craft carriers for an assault. These ships were specially configured to carry the landing barges and such elements of an Army Landing Engineer Unit to operate them.

In any assault TF, there was a selection of landing craft carriers that serviced the rest of the TF. That was reality and is the basis of our rule. LC carriers are denoted AK-t, which is equivalent to an Allied AP. Everything else is an xAK-t, for assault TFs, or an xAK for TranspTFs.


Matt

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 43
RE: More DBB - 8/11/2016 5:38:58 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Regarding the various rules you posted earlier, one situation occurred to me about fragments. Many times a player air transports (not meaning para drop) units, including units that have devices too large to air transport.

I can think of two kinds of cases. One is where the air transportable units are bolstering a defense. The IJ side does this a bunch, and it is rarely expected that the rest of the unit will catch up (via sea or land), because the air transported elements either come back by air or are destroyed when the position is overwhelmed.

The other case is rapid forward movement by either side, where the devices too heavy to transport catch up via ship or land movement. Sometimes combat units, very often base forces where things like radars and bulldozers catch up.

How do those two use cases comport with the spirit of the 'no fragments' rule?

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 44
RE: More DBB - 8/12/2016 3:52:38 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		Both examples violate the spirit as well as the terms of the rule.

I understand that the AE engine allows all kinds of air transport by all kinds of planes, simply because they have a residual carrying capacity that can be exploited. But, our scenarios are not for AE. Most of our people are military or civilians in the field, who keep kosher when playing out a problem. They know those things never happened so they do not do them. If you have seen the interior of a PBY you will understand how bizarre that concept is.

Our air transport is only by designated transport specific aircraft, not because it is a rule, but because it is simple common sense and doctrinal usage. Oddball situations can be approved/implemented by an umpire: rare, but it has happened once or twice.

The whole idea behind our scenarios is planning: planning objectives, planning the op, planning the timing, planning the convergence of troops and ships, planning assaults (stack management), planning reserves, planning post capture activity/build-up (more properly part of op/objective planning). And we all know that prior planning prevents ….. There is simply no room for exploit behavior, regardless of what the code allows.

I am afraid this scenario ‘rule book’ will have the hard and fast rule. Obviously, playing with AE lets one do lots of crazy things, and you don’t have umpires, so one may do as they wish. However, playing the scenario for its intended purpose, and with reasonable, rational constraints, could be an interesting learning experience.

Matt


< Message edited by US87891 -- 8/12/2016 3:55:35 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 45
RE: More DBB - 8/12/2016 8:19:52 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Thanks. Not looking for exploits, rather for understanding the edge cases (like the ones I described).

BTW, I might have missed it if you said it earlier but the cat vs transport types was good to mention.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 46
RE: More DBB - 8/13/2016 4:36:47 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		I am sorry. Did not mean to imply any badness on your part. We are not 'computer wargamers' so questions about rule edges makes me uncomfortable. Hope you understand.

Matt

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 47
RE: More DBB - 8/13/2016 4:52:40 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: US87891

I am sorry. Did not mean to imply any badness on your part. We are not 'computer wargamers' so questions about rule edges makes me uncomfortable. Hope you understand.

Matt

No implication was taken, just trying to be clear.

BTW, do you have the rules in a single document? If not I'm going to pull them in from these posts.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 48
RE: More DBB - 8/16/2016 3:11:28 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

The Japanese paradigm was different from ours. Ships were temporarily converted to host troops in the cargo section, but that did not make them assault ready. The Japanese paradigm was to have designated ships serve as landing craft carriers for an assault. These ships were specially configured to carry the landing barges and such elements of an Army Landing Engineer Unit to operate them.

In any assault TF, there was a selection of landing craft carriers that serviced the rest of the TF. That was reality and is the basis of our rule. LC carriers are denoted AK-t, which is equivalent to an Allied AP. Everything else is an xAK-t, for assault TFs, or an xAK for TranspTFs.


Matt


Very interesting, what would be the rate between xAK-t and AK-t in a typical invasion?
would that ratio become a HR?

Are xAPs completely out of amphibious TFs? or the same rule of a specific number of AK-t applies?
would APDs count as landing barge carriers?

What about AMCs? assuming of course they are available in the scenario
should they be allowed to carry troops? maybe just supply?

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 8/16/2016 3:17:46 PM >

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 49
RE: More DBB - 8/16/2016 5:31:33 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		Witpqs - Yes, the 'rules' will be published with the scenario. There are not a lot of them, but they are scenario rules. A lot of my posts are providing context for why rules are rules. More explanation follows in my response to Jorge.

Jorge_Stanbury - as said, above, there are rules and then there is context. Context informs the actions of a player such that they should be encouraged to operate within a reasonable environment, given the scenario. I guess HRs are ok, but restrictions on action should come from period understanding and situational analysis, not necessarily an arbitrary set of constraints.

Given that, the truth of Japanese amphibious shipping was that every ship was an xAK taken from the merchant fleet by the IJA with a promise to return it when no longer necessary (they also sold homesites in the everglades). Some were quickly converted to carry troops by building wood racks, installing urination troughs and fire-brick slabs for cooking. Feces were eliminated over the side on rows of 'seats of ease'. Washing (bodies and clothing) was on deck, pumped from sea water. Sound bizarre? Think of your typical Napoleonic line-of-battle ship.

IJA chose a few to carry landing craft and embedded units of their shipping engineer regiments to handle them. These were the ships that humped the troops from all the others. Their number depended on availability of shipping engineer units, which were far and few between. It all depends on what was available in a particular time period.

The scenario has some, few, AK types which are devised to model some, few, Japanese ships that had shipping engineer units on board and a deck load of daihatsus. Japan had no paradigm for amphib ops; it was catch as catch can. They would assign a number of landing craft carriers, with their shipping engineer units, to an operation depending on circumstance.

So you see, it is not susceptible to a rule, not even a house rule. It is context and depends on the honor of the opponent.

Matt

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 50
RE: More DBB - 8/16/2016 8:07:03 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Thanks for the detailed explanation. Japanese soldiers and sailors were used to enduring appalling life conditions, so it doesn't sound bizarre at all that they were expected to travel on those conversions

I would say an honorable Japanese player should try to include at least one AK-t in an amphibious TF; and if not available, all sank, etc maybe include an empty xAK or AV to be the designate landing craft carrier

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 51
RE: More DBB - 8/16/2016 9:11:09 PM   
Skyros


Posts: 1570
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline 		Jorge these conversion cruises might not have seemed so bad to them when you realize that a majority of IJA came from the farming classes and were probably used to outhouses and no running water. Even in the us in 1940 fewr then half of all housees had hot water, a toilet and a bathtub.

By today's standards its appalling by 1940 maybe not so bad.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 52
RE: More DBB - 8/17/2016 4:44:15 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		A follow up point to the "period understanding" which the DBB crew operate under.

I'm not involved in DaBabes nor have I downloaded these short scenarios, so I don't know exactly what assets are in place.  But one thing I would like to point out, which I think US87891 would agree with, is the "stretching" of the code capabilities with regard to float plane groups which some players engage in.

In AE, air units are capable of having reserve planes assigned.  For LBA this is not an issue at all.  A USA 25 plane squadron located on a terrestrial airbase has plenty of land area to accommodate 4 reserve planes.  It isn't really an issue with a USN squadron found on a CV to have reserve planes attached because although the available space is more limited on a CV than it is on a terrestrial base, there is some spare carrying capacity plus the code already incorporates the 110% and 115% capacity limitations.

Float plane units have to be accommodated within the existing code.  When these units are operating off ships, and in particular off Japanese submarines, there is plenty of scope for players to abuse the system by not paying any attention to "period understanding".  There are players who add reserve planes to their float units.  On an American surface ship this may result in a 4 airframe + 1 reserve airframe where it is not obvious the spare could be stored on board.  But where it really does require the complete suspension of reality is when a float unit on a Japanese submarine has the double of both 1 airframe + 1 reserve airframe, and flying a bigger airframe than what historically could be carried on the extremely limited space available on a submarine.

This is the sort of issue which really should not need to be addressed in a HR.  It is the sort of issue which, to paraphrase Symon, a "righteous" player would consider to be just playing the code and not reflect "period understanding".

The bottom line is intent and period understanding always trumps having formalised rules.  The real benefit of the "rules" which US87891 is posting here is to educate those not sufficiently knowledgeable on the period praxis/doctrine/practicalities/history.

Alfred   

(in reply to Skyros)
Post #: 53
RE: More DBB - 8/18/2016 10:07:32 AM   
chemkid

 

Posts: 1238
Joined: 12/15/2012
Status: offline 		.

< Message edited by chemkid -- 4/25/2018 11:37:15 AM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 54
RE: More DBB - 8/20/2016 5:32:43 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		New legs work just fine. Brit got an evening pass and we rocked the house. At breakfast, I got cheers from my friends in durance vile. On Thursday, had a visit from Shaquille O'Neil. He was in Mobile, but wanted to go see the folks at P'cola. What a lovely man. He was truly interested in us and beyond gracious. Don't have words. John would call it righteous. Yes, I think that is right.

Matt

(in reply to chemkid)
Post #: 55
RE: More DBB - 8/23/2016 4:47:30 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		Believe most is finished. In the naval area, the relative numbers of amphib/transport ships appear to work as designed, although the numbers will seem very thin to regular AE-GC players.

Japan has 27 AP/AK types (amph, with bonus)
Japan has 15 xAK-t types (amph, no bonus)
Japan has 121 xAP/xAK types (no amph, no bonus)

Allies have 38 AP/AK types (amph, with bonus)
Allies have 173 xAP/xAK types (no amph, no bonus)

Both sides have ~ 150-200 ants (<< 1000 ton capacity)

Tankers are at a premium for both sides. Japan has 46 TK types, 22 of which are very small (1200 ton capacity). Allies have 44 TK types, 13 of which are small (5000 tons capacity or less). Fully loaded, the Japanese TK fleet can move 262,700 tons of fuel. Fully loaded, the US TK fleet can move 263,400 tons of fuel. Fully loaded, the other Allied TK fleet can move 163,700 tons of fuel.

For reference, the IJN mobile fleet requires 162,000 tons of fuel for each complete refuel. Transport and ancillary operations may require up to 150,000 additional tons, depending on intensity. For Japan, there is no production and no daily fuel anywhere, so everything must be transported by TKs to operational naval bases for service.

Matt

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 56
RE: More DBB - 8/24/2016 5:14:39 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		More production notes. Production is off. US gets daily fuel and daily supply at mainland bases. Australia gets some daily supply at selected locations. Japan gets a minimal amount of fuel/supply at her main base of Manila, but everything else comes in on those special convoys that arrive, dump, and leave. Specials may go to Manila, Davao, Babeldaob, Saipan, depending on origin.

So, Allies have daily fuel/supply, Japan has periodic special convoys. everything must be transported to the front lines from the arrival point.

Allies have some build for their devices, Japan has none. Japanese troop/device reinforcements come periodically in special convoys that dump to the pools. Even Allies have to rely on special pool infusions of heavy weapons.

In the pacific theater, infantry comprised 16.3% of operational units and incurred 76.4% of casualties. This is consistent with the statistics from Italy and France. Assault capable units are a wasting asset. Sooner or later they have to go home to be rebuilt. That was a fact of life. Hope we modeled it as it was.

Matt

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 57
RE: More DBB - 8/24/2016 6:21:10 PM   
Skyros


Posts: 1570
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline 		Can't wait to play the final product.

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 58
RE: More DBB - 8/25/2016 3:47:14 AM   
TOMLABEL


Posts: 5116
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Alabama - ROLL TIDE!!!!!
Status: offline 		Interesting.

_____________________________


Art by the Rogue-USMC

WITP Admiral's Edition: Ship & Sub Art/Base Unit Art/Map Icon Art

"If destruction be our lot - it will come from within"...Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Skyros)
Post #: 59
RE: More DBB - 8/29/2016 5:58:28 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline 		Thank you all for your interest.

There were many weapons and local pattern vehicles built in OZ/NZ. These included 25pdr guns manufactured at Maribynong, whence came the QF 25pdr Short. OZ/NZ had a fairly robust armaments industry about this time. Many OZ/NZ devices are buildable, therefore.

What they did not have were tanks. The armoured regiments at Puckapunyal were training units with a mix of LP carriers, LP scout cars, and a very few Vickers VIs. They can upgrade, of course, but only if OZ gets those convoys of Stuarts and Lees (among other things). John has the shipping schedules so he is doing the special convoys.

The start Realism and Game Options recommend upgrades-off and replacements-off. Selecting who gets what and who gets topped-off is a high pay-scale staff function consistent with the game’s flexibility. Players may wish to spend some time tailoring their assets on a periodic basis. It is all part of the planning process for subsequent operations.

Matt

(in reply to TOMLABEL)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: More DBB Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.781