Australian OOB in Da Babes

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Australian OOB in Da Babes

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 >> Australian OOB in Da Babes

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Australian OOB in Da Babes - 7/31/2016 1:35:13 PM

Gridley380

Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

In the latest version of Da Babes I see the Aussies can no longer form divisions; curious as to why this change from stock was made?

Great mod, BTW!

Post #: 1

RE: Australian OOB in Da Babes - 7/31/2016 5:10:31 PM

US87891

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline

Because we prefer to focus on the war in the "Pacific" aspect of the game. Australia's operational space does not require 'Divisions'. Australian divisions were constantly changing; they might have 2, 3 or 4 brigades under command, and an equally variable amount of arty, so how to deal with that? We just gave some DivHQs and a bunch of brigades that can come and go as they please. This is a much more flexible arrangement for Australia's wartime tasks; both at home, and in her 'out-deployed' operational area.

Used correctly, a DivHQ, 3 brigades and integral Div Arty Bns will stand up to a 'division' stack. The 'a div beats 3 rgts every time' stuff is urban legend and simply not true. Michaelm has been very good about tweaking the combat algorithm and casualty calculations, to make them more adaptively realistic. Mathematically valid statistical analysis shows a 3% differential in casualty rates between a fully formed division and a division consisting of constituent units, when the aggregates are rationally related. Given the code algorithm, this is exactly what would be expected, mathematically.

Since there is simply no difference, why not let Aus/NZ retain the operational flexibility they actually enjoyed?

Matt

(in reply to Gridley380)

Post #: 2

RE: Australian OOB in Da Babes - 7/31/2016 5:48:18 PM

witpqs

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

No idea what arduous tweezers work it took for Michael to tweak those particular innards just the right way, but that was a great change he made. I can verify that in practice it is working quite well. I have no fear at all of using a division as the three regiments and only feel compelled to combine them to get TOE upgrades (talking a ~5 years old version of Babes for a game in progress). In March '45 I just now combined original regiments of one USMC division for that reason only.

Edit to add: I am sure any TOE upgrades in newer scenarios applies at the appropriate org levels. Was just citing experience with the one we are running.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 7/31/2016 5:49:42 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to US87891)

Post #: 3

RE: Australian OOB in Da Babes - 8/2/2016 3:08:35 PM

US87891

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Edit to add: I am sure any TOE upgrades in newer scenarios applies at the appropriate org levels. Was just citing experience with the one we are running.

Yes, indeed. A good point. In our scenarios, TOE upgrades are tagged to the highest echelon level of a unit's "parent". Where Br/Rgt is highest echelon for an LCU, TOE upgrades happen with respect to those particular echelons. The changing configurations of individual brigade structures is another reason we chose to represent Australian forces in this manner.

Matt

< Message edited by US87891 -- 8/2/2016 3:10:07 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 4

RE: Australian OOB in Da Babes - 8/2/2016 8:29:08 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

I don't mind both arragnements (div/non-div), but when you divide divisions into generic A/B/C regiments it breaks immersion, at least for me. Now, if USA 41st Infantry Division could be broken down into 81st and 82nd Inf Regiments and 86th Arty Regiment, that would be perfect. Right now I mostly don't divide divisions just to keep their historical "flavor" names.

(in reply to US87891)

Post #: 5

RE: Australian OOB in Da Babes - 8/2/2016 8:57:03 PM

mussey

Posts: 683
Joined: 12/2/2006
From: Cleve-Land
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I don't mind both arragnements (div/non-div), but when you divide divisions into generic A/B/C regiments it breaks immersion, at least for me. Now, if USA 41st Infantry Division could be broken down into 81st and 82nd Inf Regiments and 86th Arty Regiment, that would be perfect. Right now I mostly don't divide divisions just to keep their historical "flavor" names.

I'm the opposite. I like the A/B/C because it's easier to see with my tired eyes. I'm curious how many component units are made w/I a div besides the inf/art/eng? Is there a recon bn.? Etc?

_____________________________

Col. Mussbu

The long arm of the law - "The King of Battle"

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 6

RE: Australian OOB in Da Babes - 8/6/2016 1:08:14 PM

Gridley380

Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

Good answers, thanks!

(in reply to mussey)

Post #: 7

Page: [1]

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

Page: [1]