Updated 30/07/2022: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3b

[LargeSlowTarget]

I have not designed the mod for AI play and not adapted the AI files for the additional units, ships and bases in my mod. Many base slots have been switched to other geographical areas and many ships and LCUs have been added and some have changed database slots in the editor. I have never tested my mod against the AI, so I cannot comment on the effects of my changes on AI behaviour with existing AI files. Strange things may happen.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Version 1.3 in the works - last call for bug reports / feedback !

Changes (going from memory, there are probable more small things I already forgot about):

- fixes for a number of database glitches, for example some Zeros having different 20mm canon models on normal range and on extended range
- fix for SWPac HQ being "not in play" (due to having a sub-unit - Dougout Doug)
- added missing art file for Hashima class netlayer
- added missing late-war IJN oiler Hario
- added missing late-war minelayers of the Minoo and Kamishima classes
- corrected classes for oilers Kazahaya and Hayasui, Hayasui gains the missing flight deck and float planes
- corrected Akitsu Maru: Was used as assault ship and aircraft ferry > can instant-convert between LSD (many troops, few planes) and AKV (few troops, many planes). Can upgrade the "flying-off platform" to full flight deck to operate Ki-76 and Ka-1, which she apparently did IRL (but ship remains LSD type, not being a full CVE)
- corrected Nitsigu Maru: Apparently she did not have a "flying-off platform" > new class and art file. Has conversion option to become a "flight deck LSD" like Akitsu Maru.


The most important change concerns R&D and Japanese engine management:

1. With current R&D model, the Japanese can advance the availability dates of planes by several months if not years, for example flying Zero M8 and Frank-r by 1943 - this is unrealistic and is a major gripes for AFBs.

2. Japanese aircraft R&D / production and engine production requires considerable engine management efforts, something which discourages playing Japan.

Since the philosophy of this mod is "more historically accurate (personal bias and all)", I will try to limit the unrealistic advancement of late-war plane types.

Also, I personally do not relish the engine management part of the game.

However, since other players may prefer things as they are and want to micromanage and optimize production, I will propose three scenario variants:

- scenario 059 Standard R&D
> standard engine production
> all 74 R&D factories available


- scenario 060 Limited R&D
> standard engine production
> only planes actually under R&D in Dec 1941 have a R&D factory assigned
> only the first version of a model line has a R&D factoy assigned, e.g. there is a R&D factory for the Jill B6N1, but none for the Jill B6N2
> this reduces the number of available R&D factories from 74 to 18
> so JFBs have still some leeway, but face far tougher choices and shouldn't be able to advance multiple late-war types
> the other R&D factories are now production factories, set to produce 0 units per month of a fictional "plane" called "R&D / Preprod setup"
> the JFB player can change these factories to produce available airframes, but he will still be limited by the engines bottleneck


- scenario 061 Simplified Production
> contains limited R&D like in Scen 060
> all planes except those using jets, rockets and 'foreign engines' use a generic "engine" device, just like the Allied planes do > no more engine management!
> research engine factories become available at the appropriate date (e.g. the "Ha-60" becomes the "10/42" engine and the factory can be switched to produce "engine" devices in 10/42)
> Samurai hono(u)r demands that engine research remain untouched, i.e. no switching of late-war factories to the earliest date available
> to offset the now easier / more efficient engine production, repair costs for engine factories have been doubled to 2000 supplies / point - so be careful not to over-extend!

ETA in about a month.

[Alikchi2]

I'm excited for Scenario 61 myself! Wrapping my head around engine management was always a pain.

[LargeSlowTarget]

I am late again, ETA was set for early may but I still have stuff to add. Obtained a file from Gridley380 with some interesting details and corrections and will work some of them into my mod. Updating three sets of scenario files is time-consuming, so I now aim for late August.

[el cid again]

I understand. I maintain 7 file sets - 6 issued and one in development for a 1945 mini-game.
It takes time to duplicate many records. Just keep soldering on. You will get there. You
have provided me with many things - such as a vast list of US LST's with accurate data -
and many eratta reports. I am grateful.

[Gridley380]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Obtained a file from Gridley280 with some interesting details and corrections and will work some of them into my mod.

That's *3*80. I'm not a Clemson.

Glad there were some things of interest - anything in particular? I might be able to find more.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Sorry Gridley380, just a typo.

I haven't had the time yet to fact-check your entire doc, but the first few paragraphs contained interesting details for example on the cruise speed of the Wickes APDs (they lost half the boilers, but that should have an impact on top speed, not so much on the cruise speed) and the top speed of the Teapa lass (I learned that the banana boats have been re-engined with diesels and managed 16 knots, not 27 knots as in the game). I may also "steal" the tip to render the F4F7 carrier-capable and to add a recon detachment to each carrier.

However, in some details you should check your sources. The starting location for HMS Victorious for example - you want to put her at Aden instead of Cristobal, but in fact she entered the Pacific via the Panama canal. You also want to put CVE Shah and Tracker at Aden - that's not correct either. HMS Shah has been built at Seattle, picked-up her airgroup at San Francisco and then joined the British Fleet by crossing the Pacific, leaving San Francisco on 440115 (the game has a wrong date). HMS Tracker served in the Atlantic, got a refit at New York in order to be able to operate US carrier aircraft, and left New York on 45/01/01 for San Diego via the Panama canal (the game puts her at Cristobal at that date, so wrong place or time). But no worries, even if your data is not always on target, it points me to things I have not verified before which leads to the discovery of errors in the base scenario - so thanks again for sharing your data! I will continue to dig through the file.

[Gridley380]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Sorry Gridley380, just a typo.

No problem.

However, in some details you should check your sources. The starting location for HMS Victorious for example - you want to put her at Aden instead of Cristobal, but in fact she entered the Pacific via the Panama canal. You also want to put CVE Shah and Tracker at Aden - that's not correct either. HMS Shah has been built at Seattle, picked-up her airgroup at San Francisco and then joined the British Fleet by crossing the Pacific, leaving San Francisco on 440115 (the game has a wrong date). HMS Tracker served in the Atlantic, got a refit at New York in order to be able to operate US carrier aircraft, and left New York on 45/01/01 for San Diego via the Panama canal (the game puts her at Cristobal at that date, so wrong place or time). But no worries, even if your data is not always on target, it points me to things I have not verified before which leads to the discovery of errors in the base scenario - so thanks again for sharing your data! I will continue to dig through the file.

Actually, I moved some of the RN ships for personal preference. This is, after all, notes for *my* mod. I didn't expect anyone would be interested in anything short of a full-up scenario, so I didn't distinguish between things I did for historical accuracy and things I did for personal preference (I've also got a note in there about having the Americal Division appear as the 23rd Infantry Division, for example - not at all historical). Probably should have highlighted the "choice" ones before passing my notes to you, sorry.

A few notes on the notes:
My B-29 data is OBE - I've found better info since. I can dig that out if you're interested.
The changes to the Treasury class reflect that AGCs aren't as useful in-game as those ships are as long-range escorts. The pain of doing long-range convoys historically isn't worth the pain of having those ships fill a historical role that the game doesn't really use.
The Dutch engineers are somewhat speculative - they had engineer units in their OrBat, but I'm not sure how many personnel they had assigned.
The US Army land OrBats and TOEs both seem to need some serious work. Basically some day I'll sit down and comb through Stanton for the PTO as I've mostly done for the ETO. The US "division wedge" also seems to have too little support in-game. I've been mulling splitting most of the support out of HQc/y and creating some ENG units representing groups of Army Service Force personnel.
Allowing the conversion of Crater AK to Liberty xAK is another preference thing - be the time I get the Crater class I don't have a use for them except as more xAK's. Making them xAK's makes them easier to keep track of.
Dougout Doug's stats are a matter of debate, but I don't like him, so in my game he will have truly lousy stats.
Buffing up Wake is something I need to play test more - I'd like to be able to get a semi-historical result for the initial Japanese assault at least, say, one time in three.
The VF Dets are something that I feel the US is really missing out on late-war; recon is VERY important in the game, as it was historically, and the fast carrier force had aircraft aboard for that purpose. The game should provide for that.
The Advanced Carrier Training Groups are another "miss" - they existed historically and can fulfill their basic purpose in the game.
The Barracuda's arguably had limited "on map" service and thus representing them is a boost for the Allies, but since the class data existed I decided to take advantage of it.
The xAPc's are useless in-game, and they're never going to get into a place where they might be sunk in a game I'm playing, so since there are lots of units missing I use the slots for those.
I haven't play-tested the Ground Support Equipment idea, but fixing aviation support is a major goal.
AA lethality is something I brought up in another thread, but nothing I've seen there has changed my mind.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Just to inform you that the release of the v1.3 tentatively set for August is being delayed.

After checking the arrival dates and locations of capital ships, I have discovered that the arrival dates and locations of US submarines are inexact as well.

For example, in the DBB base scenario, the USS Barb arrives September 15th 1942 at Balboa. IRL she was assigned to the Atlantic Fleet and operated out of Roseneath, Scotland, until July 1943. She was then reassigned to the Pacific Fleet and reached Pearl Harbor in September 1943 - so in the game she arrives in the PTO one year early! (Strange, never heard any complaints from AFBs about getting Allied assets way earlier...)

Same for USS Blackfish - arrives September 15th 1942 at Balboa, when IRL she operated in the Atlantic until July 1943.

Other boats have their arrival dates off by a week or a month - for example USS Gato, which in the game arrives at Balboa on January 15th 1942 when IRL she departed New London, CT for Pearl Harbor via Panama only on February 16th 1942.

So, I'm digging through DANFS again to correct the dates of US subs in the editor. With the holiday season over, my RL workload is picking up , so for the moment I cannot project a new release date.

[Gridley380]

The US gets some CVEs early too - I think all four of the Sangamon arrive early.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

The US gets some CVEs early too - I think all four of the Sangamon arrive early.

In DBB Sangamon and sisters (except Santee) arrive Dec 15 1942 at Balboa, which is consistent with them leaving the Torch area in mid-November 1942 for overhaul at Norfolk and their arrival at New Caledonia on January 4th, 1943.

However, the arrival date for Santee is wrong, the game has her arriving at Tacoma on May 22, 1943 - at that time she was based at Norfolk for ASW duty in the Atlantic. She transited the Panama Canal for Pacific duty on 18–19 February 1944.

While at it, there a really extreme cases of early arrivals - the Balao class submarine USS Ling for example enters the game on December 15, 1943 - in fact she was commissioned only on June 8th 1945 and never made a war patrol!

[Gridley380]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

In DBB Sangamon and sisters (except Santee) arrive Dec 15 1942 at Balboa, which is consistent with them leaving the Torch area in mid-November 1942 for overhaul at Norfolk and their arrival at New Caledonia on January 4th, 1943.

However, the arrival date for Santee is wrong, the game has her arriving at Tacoma on May 22, 1943 - at that time she was based at Norfolk for ASW duty in the Atlantic. She transited the Panama Canal for Pacific duty on 18–19 February 1944.

While at it, there a really extreme cases of early arrivals - the Balao class submarine USS Ling for example enters the game on December 15, 1943 - in fact she was commissioned only on June 8th 1945 and never made a war patrol!

There are days I wonder how long it would take to go through DANFS for every USN ship commissioned before the end of the war and note down when she entered the Pacific (and left, for those that did). Then there are days I say "someone on this forum must have already done that and made a spreadsheet... right?"

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

There are days I wonder how long it would take to go through DANFS for every USN ship commissioned before the end of the war and note down when she entered the Pacific (and left, for those that did). Then there are days I say "someone on this forum must have already done that and made a spreadsheet... right?"

Take a look at Spooky's site. There's a huge amount of data there, including lots of downloadable excel spreadsheets. There may be one or two which have the arrival date info you are looking for.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Gridley380, I would love to get hold of such a spreadsheet as well.

As it is, while going through DANFS I correct the data directly in the editor.

But it is possible to dump the scenario files into .csv files via the witploadae.exe tool in order to obtain a spreadsheet.

That said, DANFS does not always gives exact dates and or locations in the AE sense i.e. where and when a vessel is entering the map, so guesstimates must be made working backwards / forward from available information.

I also found DANFS to be incomplete - the entries for USS Plaice (SS-390) and USS Trutta (SS-421) for example are missing - both saw service in the PTO.

[ReadyR]

Hello LST. Thinking about launching a PBEM of the Bottlenecks mod. Do you have an update on the ETA for your new version? Given that it probably won't update a game that is already underway, should we wait a bit...or dive in with the current version?

Many thanks.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Hi ReadyR, appreciate your interest in my mod. As explained on page 4, I plan to release three different versions.

My own base scenario is 61, the version with reduced number of R&D and simplified Japanese engine production. I have finished the revision of US subs, but haven't had time to run the scenario and check my latest changes.

If ok, I will "work backwards" and apply the changes to my scen 60 and 59 files, the versions with normal Japanese engine production. This will require dumping the scenario files into .csv files and doing some copying and pasting of device, location and aircraft data to replace the engine models in factories and aircraft models. Then I have to check in-game for any data errors.

So, if you want to play scen 61, I can send the files before the end of the month, for the others I cannot provide an ETA yet. I do have a week off end of October which hopefully allows me to finish the other scenarios - but that will depend on the "honey-do list"...

[ReadyR]

Hi LST. Many thanks! Have discussed with my opponent. We are both keen to dive in, so we will be going with your current Scen 59. Really looking forward to the mod.

[ReadyR]

Hi LST. Real life has prevented us from getting started on our game until recently. We are about a week in and I really enjoy what I have seen so far. It is truly much more difficult to get supply and units moving as Allies. And while in other games I have an Ace or two at Clark or Manila, I now have mostly wreckage...

One question. I guess because I am Canadian, I take a special interest in the two (under strength and under trained units..Winnipeg Grenadiers and Royal Rifles) that were in Hong Kong as part of the garrison. Your mod does not include them. I recognize they did not last long, but they fought valiantly. What was the rationale to not including them...oversight, or lack of slots...?

[LargeSlowTarget]

Hi ReadyR, glad you enjoy the mod. It should be more difficult for the Japanese as well to move stuff around. Do you play with my pwhexe.dat file?

Lack of database slots keep me from modelling all Bn sized units individually. The Hong Kong garrison consisted of two British, two Indian and two Canadian Bns, plus AA and arty, the Volunteer Defense Corps, a Royal Marine Detachment and oddly even a squad of Free French. "My" Hong Kong garrison consists of a "Kowloon brigade" with the two Indian and a British Bn which manned the Gindrinkers line and a "Hong Kong brigade" of the two Canadian and one British Bn which manned the island defenses. If you look at the TOE of the two brigades, you will find all the aforementioned elements, inclusive the Canadians and even the Free French. In the latest version I am currently working on I have added Canadian brigadier John K. Lawson as a new leader and have put him in charge of the Hong Kong brigade. He was the senior Canadian officer at Hong Kong and the highest-ranking Canadian soldiers KIA during the war.

Let me know if you have other questions.

[ReadyR]

Thanks for this. I now see that they are there! (I should have dug a bit deeper)

Yes, we are playing with your pwhexe.dat file.

If we bump into any questions/issues I will let you know.

RR