DBB-c a/c replacements

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design, art and sound modding and the game editor for WITP Admiral's Edition.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Rob Brennan UK
Posts: 3685
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 8:36 pm
Location: London UK

DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by Rob Brennan UK »

Hope this is the right place to ask ... here goes

Playing the above DaBabes Mod ( really good too) .. and game is now 3/8/42 .. AS the Commonwealth player in a 3 player game I have noticed a distinct lack of DC-3 replacements which according to the arrival date are 4/42 , I have received Nil so far. Is it just a question of mis labelled arrival date ? or something more serious?

If anyone knows more than I, please help ,, (im editor clueless btw).

Thank you
sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by wdolson »

You say you're in March 42 of the game and deliveries of DC-3 are supposed to start in April? You have a few weeks before deliveries start.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by LoBaron »

Hello Bill! Thanks for replying. FYI, I am playing the US part of the Allies in this PBEM.

It is August 2nd ´42 currently in our game. Below is the screenshot of the CW TR replacements:

Image

What Rob has an issue with is that from Apr 1st until Aug 2nd only 5 DC-3 airframes have been produced, while on average the ammount should be 12.
My explanation would be that the low production rate (3 per month) leads to extreme variations on how many airframes are actually produced and we poor battered Allies are just unlucky.
Image
User avatar
Rob Brennan UK
Posts: 3685
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 8:36 pm
Location: London UK

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by Rob Brennan UK »

3/8/42 in English means 3rd august 1942 , American is 8th march . my apologies for not being clearer.

~I know production is tiny , but not seen any arrive in convoys either and new units have 2-4 a/c.

TTFN

Rob


Edit - looking at the production screenshot I'm somewhat embarrassed as i did say I'd received nil. And if asked I'd swear to it in court too.. until that 1 arrival this turn ( which is odd as i have no replacements turned on so should be still in the pool ). I'll double check this next turn just in case I am being stupid.
sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by LoBaron »

Rob I think when we initially had the discussion about it (4+ weeks ago?) it was indeed 0. The arrivals indeed have to be from the last 2 months ingame time.
Image
User avatar
btd64
Posts: 12738
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:48 am
Location: Lancaster, OHIO

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by btd64 »

The brit DC2/3 have been short in every game I have played since the very beginning. I just never worried about it. Bigger fish to fry. In Andy's scenario 60 nasty I have the same problem. I am going to increase production and see if that helps. Will let you know....GP
Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
New Game Development Team

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
User avatar
Symon
Posts: 1885
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Location: De Eye-lands, Mon

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by Symon »

Hi Rob. Same as it ever was. Nothing new. Maybe worth a look, but it's gonna have to be in an overall context. Good call. Ciao JWE
[ed] I like her conchs.
Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by LoBaron »

So from a scenario perspective the abysimal replacement rate seems to be correct. Thanks for the support gentlemen!

Now, there remains the point of CW TR squads arriving @ 1/3rd strenght without the planes to max them out, let alone replace op losses for at least 16 months. Admittedly I don´t have access to reliable data about DC-3 in CW use in Asia, but it seems a tad low as Rob would say.

John, will you ever have time to review the airframe replacement rates end to end for DBB and balance it with historical as well as reinforcement ssquadrons? [;)]
Image
User avatar
Symon
Posts: 1885
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Location: De Eye-lands, Mon

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by Symon »

Yes, it really is 3/month, a holdover from who knows when. It's a build rate so it should be stable and not subject variation. Wierd. And yes, it's dismally low when one looks at the number of transport squadrons effected.

Guess I'm going have to find the time Snoopy. We've never really looked into many of the airplane and air group data fields because the air team was so righteous. But they were probably moving so fast to get the game released that they may have missed an implication or two.

Am doing a revision on airframe upgrades and air group upgrade lists for GreyJoy and the other PDU-Off people and it won't be too much extra work to fold in transport aircraft and squadrons. Don't know if I can do an "end to end", that's pretty extensive, but I can do the important ones. Anyway, will try. Can't guarantee historical accuracy, but at least it should work better within the game system.

Ciao. JWE
Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

3/8/42 in English means 3rd august 1942 , American is 8th march . my apologies for not being clearer.

I believe the correct way to state that is "3/8/42 in British English means 3rd August 1942. 3/8/42 means March 8th 1942 in American English."

You even got it backwards in the explanation. In the American version it's March 8th not 8th March.
Hans

User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by LoBaron »

John, am aware you are doing that kind of stuff for free and for all of us DBB fans.

Aprechiate the ammount of time you guys are putting into this! (I guess you know that anyways but needs to be said from time to time).
Image
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: Symon

Yes, it really is 3/month, a holdover from who knows when. It's a build rate so it should be stable and not subject variation. Wierd. And yes, it's dismally low when one looks at the number of transport squadrons effected.

Guess I'm going have to find the time Snoopy. We've never really looked into many of the airplane and air group data fields because the air team was so righteous. But they were probably moving so fast to get the game released that they may have missed an implication or two.

Am doing a revision on airframe upgrades and air group upgrade lists for GreyJoy and the other PDU-Off people and it won't be too much extra work to fold in transport aircraft and squadrons. Don't know if I can do an "end to end", that's pretty extensive, but I can do the important ones. Anyway, will try. Can't guarantee historical accuracy, but at least it should work better within the game system.

Ciao. JWE

Just to refresh your memory of how the Air Team approached the issue, you might want to read this thread from 2009.

tm.asp?m=2220477&mpage=1&key=aircraft%2Creplacements

various posts from the Elf, jwilkerson and timtom responding to accusations that they got Allied aircraft replacement rates wrong and the devs didn't know what they were doing.[:)]

Of particular interest is post #180 on page 6 from timtom who explained that the real problem, for which the primary data sources simploy do not exist, is determining not how many aircraft were actually produced, but how much of the production was actually sent to the PTO. His rule of thumb was 70% of production sent to the PTO. All timtom was certain of was that less than 100% of production was sent to the PTO. Needless to say none of the detractors could provide valid data to show the 70% rule was too low (or in fact too high).

Alfred
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by LoBaron »

Just a small follow up question:

You say it is a buildrate and should not be subject to variation. In this case I wonder why the total ammount of airframes is only 5 at the beginning of August. Shouldn´t it be 12 by then?
Image
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Just a small follow up question:

You say it is a buildrate and should not be subject to variation. In this case I wonder why the total ammount of airframes is only 5 at the beginning of August. Shouldn´t it be 12 by then?

Even a build rate is still subject to the daily odds of x/30. However, unlike factory production, it is not subject to the other vagaries such as factory turned off, or lack of inputs or combat damage etc. As such, the build rate is a much more stable number than the factory production rate.

Any aircraft model whose build rate is less than 5 can often see very sluggish delivery. This is often see in models with only a monthly build rate of 2 such as the Allied dirigible and the British night fighter.

Alfred
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Just a small follow up question:

You say it is a buildrate and should not be subject to variation. In this case I wonder why the total ammount of airframes is only 5 at the beginning of August. Shouldn´t it be 12 by then?

Even a build rate is still subject to the daily odds of x/30. However, unlike factory production, it is not subject to the other vagaries such as factory turned off, or lack of inputs or combat damage etc. As such, the build rate is a much more stable number than the factory production rate.

Any aircraft model whose build rate is less than 5 can often see very sluggish delivery. This is often see in models with only a monthly build rate of 2 such as the Allied dirigible and the British night fighter.

Alfred
+1

I've seen this.
User avatar
Symon
Posts: 1885
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Location: De Eye-lands, Mon

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by Symon »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
John, am aware you are doing that kind of stuff for free and for all of us DBB fans.

Aprechiate the ammount of time you guys are putting into this! (I guess you know that anyways but needs to be said from time to time).
Thank you LoBaron. It's people like you that we do it for. Ciao. John
Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by wdolson »

Did DaBabes also deal with the SBD shortage in late 42 and early 43? SBD production doubled when the -4 went into production in August 42 (began to become available in October or November 42). The game doesn't have a -4 and -3 production remains the same all the way through to the -5. It creates an artificial shortage of SBDs from late 42 until the -5 goes into production.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
Symon
Posts: 1885
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Location: De Eye-lands, Mon

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by Symon »

No Bill, haven't done that yet. Probably need to. Do you have the production figures? I can get to it as soon as I get over the depression of watching Oregon lose the big one. JWE

[ed] For production, I have:
585 SBD-3s, '41-'42
780 SBD-4s, '42-'43, deliveries beginning 10/42
2965 SBD-5s, '43-'44, deliveries beginning 5/43
Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.
User avatar
Symon
Posts: 1885
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:59 pm
Location: De Eye-lands, Mon

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by Symon »

38 squadrons enter the game equipped with SBD-3s, for a total of roughly 395. LA has a production plant that makes 21/month for 18 months for a total of roughly 380. Grand total roughly 775. Actual production of dash 3s and 4s was roughly 1365. Shortfall of roughly 590 airframes. But one must factor in airframes used for training and reserve, so I’ll use an out-of-my-butt estimate of 135 (roughly 10%), leaving a shortfall of 455 airframes.

Bottom line, you don’t want to double up the LA production because it extends over to the dash 5s when the airframes upgrade. But there was a step-up in production with the expansion of the El Segundo plant. However, those production steps can’t be modeled too well. It was a simple seven month bump to the dash 3s (I don’t count the dash 4 as a separate airframe, because it was just a dash 3 on 24 volts with a few provisions for new toys; none of which is representable in-game).

The Babes solution would be 7 monthly “magic” convoys, each with roughly 50-60 SBD-3s for distribution to the pool. Think of it as an early Tulsa. Since dash 4 deliveries began in October, the first “magic” convoy arrives in November. Of course, they stop in May ’43 with the introduction of the dash 5. I think that would do the trick without getting too far outside the box. One would get 1160 ariframes out of a total of 1365 produced.

Considering the 135 held back for out-of-game reserve and training, that's a shortfall of only 205 airframes out of the historical production schedule. It works for me and it's simple, easy to implement, and doesn't dick with the stock production values.

Comments ?? JWE
Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: DBB-c a/c replacements

Post by witpqs »

Talking strictly out of my nether regions: 10% sounds good, but with the actual number being so low (135), how about 'rounding' it to 200?

This is more of a 'feel' than any calculation. On this one I think if a chance of being a little wrong, then make it more likely to be a little wrong in favor of Japan.

Just my thoughts. [8D]
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”