Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

DaBabes - Comment Call

 
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 >> DaBabes - Comment Call Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/29/2010 9:58:45 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
We are getting down to the really, really, short strokes now, and would like to have some informed comment from experienced players.

The basic Support paradigm is:
US gets ~ 85-90% of unit device totals as Sup - divided up between Sup and MotSup for load hardness.
Japan gets ~ 75-80% of unit device totals as Sup - divided up between Sup and MotSup for load hardness.

So nobody gets 100% and everybody will eventually sink into the depths without an assist from a Corps HQ, or a BF, or something. We are thinking of removing all nominal LCU BFs and replacing them with actuals. This will remove about 700 Sup sources and replace them with a very limited number of Corps, Army, Area Army, and War Area BF Units. No more BFs everywhere. Combat units must be supported by a higher echelon, and that echelon needs to be in a Base hex in order to assist. This means the Marines on Guad in mid '42 may well have to go back to some permanent base in OZ to rest, recover, reconstitute.

It means that everybody goes hungry and decreases over time, unless they can go home to Mom; wherever Mom is.

We believe this will slow the ops tempo considerably, for both sides. While not looking at China in depth, we believe this will be major factor in regulating the op tempo, and alleviate the 'death star' proclivities.

Comments welcome.
Post #: 1
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/29/2010 10:54:24 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 15188
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
John,

Just to clarify - you are talking about eliminating BF's only insofar as the big extra chunks of support in BF's, right? I mean you already covered a lot about how actual base-forces/air-naval-support-units/whatever-you-want-to-call-them have been redone.

You are saying "Organic support for combat units will be less than 100%, so you better bring HQ's to make up the difference."

Have I got it?

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 2
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/30/2010 1:58:12 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1927
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
If I understand correctly, JWE is proposing to eliminated all of the (land/army) base forces, except for a small # tied to actual Corps/Army commands. So the only support to keep LCUs up to full strength will come from a limited number of Headquarters BFs. . . and those BFs can only provide support to a unit co-located at a friendly base.

With all that, the natural state for a unit in the field will be decay. (Do the units just decay to 75%-90% of their strength? Or do support squads in the undersupported unit also decay, causing a constant cycle of decline?).

An LCU garrisoning a base, with a HQ, could maintain its strength, while attacking LCUs in the hex would slowly shed strength until they could take it. So the clock is ticking for the attacker during long sieges, or for long hikes down the Kokoda trail. Hmmm . . . good history. good gameplay. I like it.

I think you'd also want to have adequate support at fixed rear-area ports of embarkation and training instalations (for the US - Ft Lewis; Camp White; Ft. Ord; Camp Luis Obispo and San Diego / Pendelton, San Francisco, Seattle and Pearl Harbor.)

< Message edited by Blackhorse -- 3/30/2010 2:18:54 AM >


_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/30/2010 2:17:48 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1927
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

But what about independent garrisons? You shouldn't need to put a Corps Headquarters on Midway to keep a Marine Defense Battalion from decaying away.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 4
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/30/2010 3:03:29 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 15188
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

If I understand correctly, JWE is proposing to eliminated all of the (land/army) base forces, except for a small # tied to actual Corps/Army commands. So the only support to keep LCUs up to full strength will come from a limited number of Headquarters BFs. . . and those BFs can only provide support to a unit co-located at a friendly base.


Yes - but currently those base forces also have other things in them (AA, radar, aviation support, and so on). So what I mean is those "other things" will be provided by their own small (& historically correct) units, while the extra Support squads (and Motorized Support) squads that base forces currently supply are getting whacked.

And some of the Support squads and Motorized Support squads in combat units are also getting whacked.

That's what I think he means.

EDIT to Add: I should mention that I am reading between the lines based upon John's other posts about cubs, lions, and so on.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 5
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/30/2010 4:26:30 AM   
treespider


Posts: 9784
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

If I understand correctly, JWE is proposing to eliminated all of the (land/army) base forces, except for a small # tied to actual Corps/Army commands. So the only support to keep LCUs up to full strength will come from a limited number of Headquarters BFs. . . and those BFs can only provide support to a unit co-located at a friendly base.

With all that, the natural state for a unit in the field will be decay. (Do the units just decay to 75%-90% of their strength? Or do support squads in the undersupported unit also decay, causing a constant cycle of decline?).

An LCU garrisoning a base, with a HQ, could maintain its strength, while attacking LCUs in the hex would slowly shed strength until they could take it. So the clock is ticking for the attacker during long sieges, or for long hikes down the Kokoda trail. Hmmm . . . good history. good gameplay. I like it.


Or it could be the death knell of the Japanese early advances...in my game with Przemek I am into mid March at Singapore with more than the historical forces attacking...with 25th Army HQ and Southern Army HQ in the hex...and no end in sight. My last few deliberate attacks have been at 1:6 with daily aerial bombardment from 100+ Sally's.

I like the idea...but not sure the game can handle it.

quote:



I think you'd also want to have adequate support at fixed rear-area ports of embarkation and training instalations (for the US - Ft Lewis; Camp White; Ft. Ord; Camp Luis Obispo and San Diego / Pendelton, San Francisco, Seattle and Pearl Harbor.)



< Message edited by treespider -- 3/30/2010 4:29:11 AM >


_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 6
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/30/2010 5:01:22 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2275
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
As you well know, the US forces had a huge trail assigned to them, perhaps not as much in the pacific as Europe. None the less early war may be an issue but by mid war the US really would be unstoppable. The Japanese would be in dire straights I am afraid. It might make the Japanese unable to sustain an advance into 42. How would all the various Japanese landing detachments get their support? I know they suffered in real life from a lack of supplies but this would be a double whammy I think.

I agree with Treespider that the idea is great but can the game handle it?

< Message edited by oldman45 -- 3/30/2010 5:02:27 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 7
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/30/2010 9:42:42 AM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1775
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
Post relocated

< Message edited by Kereguelen -- 3/30/2010 11:08:19 AM >

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 8
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/30/2010 5:15:02 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
First, having less than the required amount of Support doesn’t mean that units automatically slide down the tubes. It does mean that when they “do” something (combat, etc..) it is much more difficult to recover fatigue, disruption, etc.. This is why combat units were rotated out of combat and into a rear area for RRI&I.

Second, combat units are not getting whacked. They will have exactly the same % of Support they do right now. Treespider will have exactly the same amount of Support (with 25th and South Army HQs) as he does now.

The idea is to remove BF “units” per se, and aggregate their stuff into other, more actual, units. The further idea is to have the numbers of these other units represent a particular actuality. The number of supporting LCUs will be more limited, yes, but both sides can still put in big pushes. It just means that a big push has to be organized in scope as well as scale. One will need appropriate HQs, and specifically designated supporting units, to be able to herd the cats. There was a reason why Watchtower was called Shoestring.

As the war progresses, and these things arrive, it will become easier, but there was also a reason why there were so few staging bases for operations, and why early staging bases were left in maintenance mode while the capability was “advanced” to the next designated spot. Too many arbitrary BFs just means this operational imperative is lost, and makes it too easy.

There are units called BFs, and other units called Eng, that have some Sup functionality. Port Maintenance and Air Base Maintenance Bns have extra Sup over requirements, but only enough for some extra AA or Arty Bns. A Navy Port Bn is not expected to have hospitals, chowhouses, bunkhouses, outhouses, cathouses, and doghouses to recover a MarDiv.

AAF BFs are now Airbase Groups and Airbase Squadrons, each of which have an increment of Sup over requirements in order to help support appropriate combat units (AAA, fx). Some of the Construction Bns (Navy and Army) have an increment of Sup over requirements in order to help support appropriate combat units (AAA, fx), while they are at work building stuff. Some garrison-type units (USMC Def Bns, fx) have just enuf Sup (barely) to keep them alive while fighting, but don’t forget that combat preferentially target devices with the biggest “number”, so Sup is gonna get whacked, and disabled Sup squads don’t hep ya none.

Point is, this is like a game of cards. Japan has lots of cards on opening day (way more than the Allies and way enuf to go hog wild for a while), but every place she targets, she has to lay down a card. Sooner or later, she runs low on cards, and either ops go to hell, or combat units go to the hospital. She gets more cards as the game goes on, but for a big op, she either has to wait, or grab some discards; i.e., leave her butt hanging somewhere while she boogies somewhere else.

Lots of “permanent” BFs in certain cities and towns with gobs of RRI&I. Paradigm for Japan is a bit different, but she has these too, for her island bases (Truk, Palau, fx). Were a bit more gentle with Japan because of her historical disadvantages in every dimension. Tried to make mid ’43 the break point in the Pacific. China/Burma was a whole different can of worms.

Hope this helps explain the philosophy a bit.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 9
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/30/2010 6:48:09 PM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
I've long thought that flying units should have specific aviation support units (call them fx 31st FG Ground Echelon) that they would have to use in preference to any other Av support. Clearly, this would have to be done by house rule; I don't think the devs would relish putting in the code to enforce this. That would model reality a bit better, a flying unit wouldn't be able to sustain operations unless its ground echelon was in place, so no more transferring B-24s or Betties across the map and have them fly combat missions at once unless you use air transport to bring the ground echelon along. There would have to be a certain amount of unspecific Av support to model fx maintenance depots and cater for transfers or emergency operations.

Imagine a B-26 BG sitting in Northern Australia fitfully operating a handful of their planes while waiting for their maintenance guys to arrive by ship. AFAIK, something like that happened in 1942.

Another thing about Av support that bugs me is that an Av support squad can maintain exactly one Ki-27 or one B-29, which sounds ludicrous. I guess that code won't happen, either, but an individual support rating per aircraft would be a nice thing. A unit with 60 Av support squads could then support, say, 60 P-40 or 40 P-38/C-47 or 30 A-20 or 24 B-25 or 15 B-24 or 6 B-29. Datawise, that would be one additional field; what that would mean codewise, I have no idea, maybe just an additional multiplication when computing the Av support needed.

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 10
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/30/2010 7:30:25 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1775
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

I've long thought that flying units should have specific aviation support units (call them fx 31st FG Ground Echelon) that they would have to use in preference to any other Av support. Clearly, this would have to be done by house rule; I don't think the devs would relish putting in the code to enforce this. That would model reality a bit better, a flying unit wouldn't be able to sustain operations unless its ground echelon was in place, so no more transferring B-24s or Betties across the map and have them fly combat missions at once unless you use air transport to bring the ground echelon along. There would have to be a certain amount of unspecific Av support to model fx maintenance depots and cater for transfers or emergency operations.

Imagine a B-26 BG sitting in Northern Australia fitfully operating a handful of their planes while waiting for their maintenance guys to arrive by ship. AFAIK, something like that happened in 1942.

Another thing about Av support that bugs me is that an Av support squad can maintain exactly one Ki-27 or one B-29, which sounds ludicrous. I guess that code won't happen, either, but an individual support rating per aircraft would be a nice thing. A unit with 60 Av support squads could then support, say, 60 P-40 or 40 P-38/C-47 or 30 A-20 or 24 B-25 or 15 B-24 or 6 B-29. Datawise, that would be one additional field; what that would mean codewise, I have no idea, maybe just an additional multiplication when computing the Av support needed.


The JAAF used airfield battalions to maintain its flying units, that is, there was no direct relationship between flying units and ground echelons as found in the USAAF and the RAF. Or, in other words, their maintenance units were not part of the flying units. Sometimes those airfield battalions moved along when a flying unit changed its base, sometimes not.

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 11
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/30/2010 8:04:25 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9784
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

First, having less than the required amount of Support doesn’t mean that units automatically slide down the tubes. It does mean that when they “do” something (combat, etc..) it is much more difficult to recover fatigue, disruption, etc.. This is why combat units were rotated out of combat and into a rear area for RRI&I.

Second, combat units are not getting whacked. They will have exactly the same % of Support they do right now. Treespider will have exactly the same amount of Support (with 25th and South Army HQs) as he does now.

The idea is to remove BF “units” per se, and aggregate their stuff into other, more actual, units. The further idea is to have the numbers of these other units represent a particular actuality. The number of supporting LCUs will be more limited, yes, but both sides can still put in big pushes. It just means that a big push has to be organized in scope as well as scale. One will need appropriate HQs, and specifically designated supporting units, to be able to herd the cats. There was a reason why Watchtower was called Shoestring.

As the war progresses, and these things arrive, it will become easier, but there was also a reason why there were so few staging bases for operations, and why early staging bases were left in maintenance mode while the capability was “advanced” to the next designated spot. Too many arbitrary BFs just means this operational imperative is lost, and makes it too easy.

There are units called BFs, and other units called Eng, that have some Sup functionality. Port Maintenance and Air Base Maintenance Bns have extra Sup over requirements, but only enough for some extra AA or Arty Bns. A Navy Port Bn is not expected to have hospitals, chowhouses, bunkhouses, outhouses, cathouses, and doghouses to recover a MarDiv.

AAF BFs are now Airbase Groups and Airbase Squadrons, each of which have an increment of Sup over requirements in order to help support appropriate combat units (AAA, fx). Some of the Construction Bns (Navy and Army) have an increment of Sup over requirements in order to help support appropriate combat units (AAA, fx), while they are at work building stuff. Some garrison-type units (USMC Def Bns, fx) have just enuf Sup (barely) to keep them alive while fighting, but don’t forget that combat preferentially target devices with the biggest “number”, so Sup is gonna get whacked, and disabled Sup squads don’t hep ya none.

Point is, this is like a game of cards. Japan has lots of cards on opening day (way more than the Allies and way enuf to go hog wild for a while), but every place she targets, she has to lay down a card. Sooner or later, she runs low on cards, and either ops go to hell, or combat units go to the hospital. She gets more cards as the game goes on, but for a big op, she either has to wait, or grab some discards; i.e., leave her butt hanging somewhere while she boogies somewhere else.

Lots of “permanent” BFs in certain cities and towns with gobs of RRI&I. Paradigm for Japan is a bit different, but she has these too, for her island bases (Truk, Palau, fx). Were a bit more gentle with Japan because of her historical disadvantages in every dimension. Tried to make mid ’43 the break point in the Pacific. China/Burma was a whole different can of worms.

Hope this helps explain the philosophy a bit.




Crystal clear...me likey.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 12
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/30/2010 8:28:21 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 15188
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
mikemike,

I grant that you can not swap out a bad B-24 engine with a shiny brand new P-51 engine, but your proposal would make it impossible for those carrier planes that landed on and operated from Guadalcanal to do so.

Even as far as the points you raise (like having the right parts on hand to fix that plane), the problem is using fewer abstractions means more complexity for the player, more time to play, more code, more chance of bugs, more time/memory/cpu power to run the code, and so on.

Nice ideas but just biting off too much to chew.

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 13
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/30/2010 10:09:02 PM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

The JAAF used airfield battalions to maintain its flying units, that is, there was no direct relationship between flying units and ground echelons as found in the USAAF and the RAF. Or, in other words, their maintenance units were not part of the flying units. Sometimes those airfield battalions moved along when a flying unit changed its base, sometimes not.


Good point. I didn't know that. Did the IJNAF operate in the same way? Luftwaffe units, too, had their integrated erks.

quote:


I grant that you can not swap out a bad B-24 engine with a shiny brand new P-51 engine, but your proposal would make it impossible for those carrier planes that landed on and operated from Guadalcanal to do so.

Even as far as the points you raise (like having the right parts on hand to fix that plane), the problem is using fewer abstractions means more complexity for the player, more time to play, more code, more chance of bugs, more time/memory/cpu power to run the code, and so on.

Nice ideas but just biting off too much to chew.


No, I wouldn't want to go as far. Generalized Av support is fine. I merely thought that inducing the player to let air units preferentially be supported by Av units associated to them by name would cut down on those wild transfers all over the map. This could be done by house rule. Note that technically all Av support units would still be completely equivalent. There would still have to be a proportion of non-dedicated AV support around to cater for transfers and emergencies. Concerning carrier units being forced ashore, they would just have to share the Av support that was in place at the base they are using, just as in reality.

The other issue is that I find it too generalized that an Aviation Company with eight Av support squads could just as readily handle eight E8N as eight G8Ns. I don't mean there is a need for different types of Av support squads; I'd just prefer that you would need more of them to keep a four-engined bomber flying than a string-and-canvas biplane. Say that this eight-squad Aviation Company might be able to keep only two G8N operational (or perhaps only one?), the increased maintenance effort necessary for larger and more complex aircraft being expressed by a higher manpower need. But this would clearly need code and data modifications to work, unlike the other stuff.

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 14
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/31/2010 12:31:43 AM   
packerpete

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline
Agree with everthing you said, but would an acceptable half measure be something all less generic like:
1. allow only naval type single engine aircraft be serviceable by Navy or Marine maint. units?
2. Army Aircorp single engine etc.
3. Army Aircorp 2 engine bomber etc.
4. Army Aircorp 4 engine bomber etc.
5. All Maintenance units able to repair only lightly damaged aircraft( insert percentage here____). This would allow for only the most basic of servicing and light repair of aircraft in a transfer status but not a sustainable combat operation.

Note. The lack of specifically trained Japanese aircraft mechanics was a weakness that dogged Japanese aircraft serviceability through out the war. Not to mention poor supply, facilities, and often poorly maintained runways and taxiways that contributed to ops losses.

If this is not possible due to hard coding or a general pain the Assets. I will understand.



< Message edited by packerpete -- 3/31/2010 12:33:59 AM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 15
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/31/2010 12:41:52 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 3046
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
I had the idea of making city support points for the Med. A city inherently should have support to units: medical, food, housing, mechanics are available etc. But that city support LCU needs to be fixed, some militia units are part of it but support should be in excess. There should be also some mobile militia units(AAA, cd guns, some artillery etc) that can move between cities to reinforce places that are being attacked and that should have zero own support, that way they cannot be employed in field except at too much cost. Also non militia units heavy units like siege artillery and other heavy artillery should lack much of support since their use is at Army level, the higher level the unit, the more lack of support it should have to force bring the HQ.

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 16
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/31/2010 3:18:23 AM   
Pascal


Posts: 1638
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: in New England now after driving across US from CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

The JAAF used airfield battalions to maintain its flying units, that is, there was no direct relationship between flying units and ground echelons as found in the USAAF and the RAF. Or, in other words, their maintenance units were not part of the flying units. Sometimes those airfield battalions moved along when a flying unit changed its base, sometimes not.


Good point. I didn't know that. Did the IJNAF operate in the same way? Luftwaffe units, too, had their integrated erks.

quote:


I grant that you can not swap out a bad B-24 engine with a shiny brand new P-51 engine, but your proposal would make it impossible for those carrier planes that landed on and operated from Guadalcanal to do so.

Even as far as the points you raise (like having the right parts on hand to fix that plane), the problem is using fewer abstractions means more complexity for the player, more time to play, more code, more chance of bugs, more time/memory/cpu power to run the code, and so on.

Nice ideas but just biting off too much to chew.


No, I wouldn't want to go as far. Generalized Av support is fine. I merely thought that inducing the player to let air units preferentially be supported by Av units associated to them by name would cut down on those wild transfers all over the map. This could be done by house rule. Note that technically all Av support units would still be completely equivalent. There would still have to be a proportion of non-dedicated AV support around to cater for transfers and emergencies. Concerning carrier units being forced ashore, they would just have to share the Av support that was in place at the base they are using, just as in reality.

The other issue is that I find it too generalized that an Aviation Company with eight Av support squads could just as readily handle eight E8N as eight G8Ns. I don't mean there is a need for different types of Av support squads; I'd just prefer that you would need more of them to keep a four-engined bomber flying than a string-and-canvas biplane. Say that this eight-squad Aviation Company might be able to keep only two G8N operational (or perhaps only one?), the increased maintenance effort necessary for larger and more complex aircraft being expressed by a higher manpower need. But this would clearly need code and data modifications to work, unlike the other stuff.


As you realize, this would be fine but would truly need to be coded at some point. Essentially it would mean differentiated aviation support units like the differentiated infantry units (is this a runaround?).

JWE has a great idea to slow down the pace of ops. It's too bad, though because of coding, that its not possible to also introduce differentiated supply (which would really slow ops too).


< Message edited by Pascal -- 3/31/2010 3:19:38 AM >


_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 17
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/31/2010 3:26:09 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2275
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Your explanation JWE makes more sense. Sounds like a winner.

_____________________________


(in reply to Pascal)
Post #: 18
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/31/2010 9:36:36 AM   
che200


Posts: 907
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline
Love It

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 19
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/31/2010 5:11:11 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 3046
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

As you realize, this would be fine but would truly need to be coded at some point.


Coding always need to be made. One way is to connect the already existing airplane repair index to a specific number of air support teams.

(in reply to che200)
Post #: 20
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/31/2010 6:22:35 PM   
JWE

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
The JAAF used airfield battalions to maintain its flying units, that is, there was no direct relationship between flying units and ground echelons as found in the USAAF and the RAF. Or, in other words, their maintenance units were not part of the flying units. Sometimes those airfield battalions moved along when a flying unit changed its base, sometimes not.

Thanks. Was thinking it was kinda the same in the AAF. Just fx, Olmendorf was hosting the 28th Composite Group, but was supported by the 23rd Aviation Base Group (+) comprising 24th, 31st, 32nd Material and Base Sqdns.

We could find some of the actual opening day unit designations, but beyond that ... slim to none. So we named the Avn Base Grp units (and the Avn Base Sqdn units) with the numeric of the actual groups that entered theater, and assigned them to the corresponding AFHQs. Woof. These are all "mobile" in the sense that they can be deployed. But many are assigned to West Coast with HQ changes to 5th and 7th AF happening anywhere from 4 to 9 months later. The established Continental, Alaskan, Hawaiian, AFBs have their own permanently restricted base complements.

We gots about 72 Avn Base Grp units, with about 32 arriving in '44 and '45, so 40 is all you get for '42 and '43, and they do arrive a bit thin, and a bunch of them go to 10th and 14th AF in CBI/China. Not a lot was done with 8th AF - there were only a few groups designated for Pac, and many of these were transfers from 10th and 20th AF; all the groups actually designated to 8th AF for Pac service are in-game.

Ok, that's it for air. Have to do a little smiling and dialing on the Base Sqdns, but we're darn close.

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 21
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/31/2010 7:07:54 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8155
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Don't forget the MAGs....

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 22
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/31/2010 7:10:19 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1922
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Don't forget the MAGs....


Maggie's what, drawers?

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 23
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/31/2010 7:18:55 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3331
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
First, I am waiting on this mod before I start an AE PBEM - so hurry up yous guys!!!!!

I love what you guys are up to here. The whole concept of a logistical tail is something that needs modeled better in the game. If I am understanding what I am reading correctly it should reel in the game a little. There are some players that like myself want a model as close to the historical realities as possible. These changes may very well bring us closer to that point. For those of you concerned about the Japanese being hampered too much, I would say they should be. The early war gains were largely against undefended or lightly defended targets. Malaya would be the biggest exception to that and that was just pure superior command and control at work. While the IJA cleared most of the PI quickly they were up against it at Bataan. Homma was in trouble. His troops were exhausted and near collapse. It was only when additional fresh troops were brought in that the siege was lifted. This sounds like the exact type of scenario Da Babes is trying to create.

Look at Guadalcanal. Both sides struggled to get forces and supplies into the island. Both sides were fighting with tired and demoralized troops. What won the battle? The USN finally gained control over the SLOC, pulled the first Marine DIv and replaced them with fresh troops who had been resting and training at a rear base with plenty of support. Perhaps Da Babes will bring us this kind of game

PS: on the wish list for AFB would be that Americal comes in as its seperate Rgts. TF 6814 with the first two rgts arrived at Noumea on 12 March 1942 (132nd Inf RGT and 182nd Inf Rgt). The 164th Inf Rgt arrived NC on 19 April 1942 with artillery assets shortly thereafter. AMERICAL was formed on 24 May 1942. I just noticed that the OOB is not right in arrival dates in a lot of places as units arrive in game on or near the date where the arrived in theatre. TF 6814 left the CONTUS far sooner than March if it was on NC by 12 March

Americal

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 24
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/31/2010 7:29:27 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 484
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


The basic Support paradigm is:
US gets ~ 85-90% of unit device totals as Sup - divided up between Sup and MotSup for load hardness.
Japan gets ~ 75-80% of unit device totals as Sup - divided up between Sup and MotSup for load hardness.

Comments welcome.



And what about the British, Australia, New Zealand, India, French, Dutch, Soviet, China and other countries?


_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
The CrazyDutch

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 25
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/31/2010 8:23:28 PM   
JWE

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Don't forget the MAGs....

Oh, you bet I won't (what, do I want to be shot?). We got the all the MAWs and all the MAGs. Having some fun differentiating between BFs and HQs. What it's looking like so far, is we got 109 'technical' BFs, from USN Fleet Lions, down to AAF Base Sqdns. That's down from 196, and the loadout for AvSup is ~7/9 of what was and arrivals are realistic, so ... ain't we got fun, now.

Working from bottom up (one way) and top down (t'other way) to figure out which, where, and how structured the HQs ought to be. AAF is cookie cutter and at AF level. Marines are at MAG level. Navy is somewhere between. MAWs are mostly command level and have decent hex ranges, but don't have much for AvSup. MAGs are the working fellows, and have range 1, but provide most of the operational Marine AvSup. There's 4 MAWs and 14 MAGs. A MAG has just about the same amount of AvSup as an AAF Base Group; a MAW has about a third that of a MAG.

Still have to scrub HQs in general, but think we're about half way there.

Ciao. John

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 26
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 3/31/2010 8:31:07 PM   
JWE

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
And what about the British, Australia, New Zealand, India, French, Dutch, Soviet, China and other countries?

They come next, Jo. We won't forget our Allies.

We have to put some stakes in the ground and using the US seemed a good first step. We'll probably keep China and the Sovs in a degree of abstraction, but for the rest, we'll try and do the same majic and keep to the same standard. But that's for tomorrow.

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 27
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 4/1/2010 1:56:47 AM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

As you realize, this would be fine but would truly need to be coded at some point.


Coding always need to be made. One way is to connect the already existing airplane repair index to a specific number of air support teams.


This sounds feasible. But I believe you would have to factor in the number of engines, too. You would also need to make the individual Av support squad smaller.

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 28
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 4/1/2010 8:16:57 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
No matter what your wishes, desires, likes, dislikes, thoughts, rants, or whatever - forget it. This is a data only mod and there will be no – let me be perfectly clear – ABSOLUTELY NO – code changes, tweaks, or modifications. You need to complain about wanting the code to be different, please go to the complaint dept on the main forum, but leave this thread alone.

Ok, while we are raping, burning, and looting – whoops, keep forgetting; have to write a hundred times, “loot, Then burn – loot, Then burn” – might as well rape the HQs too, yeah

Command, Army, Air, Naval, and Phib. They all work different. A Naval HQ just spreads its NavSup and Sup over its range – not all that useful. A Command HQ gives lots of bonuses, but mostly in the ground combat environment, and for Air ops. Wish it could give a bonus for NavOps, but it cant, and it won’t, so don’t even ask. Thinking of turning Fleet HQs into Command HQs anyway.

A Fleet Boss isn’t gonna give any bennies to his ships. That’s not his job. But put Spruance or Halsey in a Fleet Command, and Smith or Barbey in a Phib HQ, and you got something to work with. Not perfect, but a skoosh better than the stock paradigm. Killed all the NavSup and Sup crap for Nav HQs; neither Nimitz nor Yamamoto had direct personal command of much beyond a few thousand staff officers that could barely change a spark plug. So Nav Command HQs are nothing more than the commander and his specs; and his staff, and the messboys with the steaks and ice cream, and the correspondents, and a few odd nephews here and there. Fit really good on the AGCs out there.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 29
RE: DaBabes - Comment Call - 4/2/2010 6:57:51 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Ok, one more piece of heresy. We have deployable units (USMC DefBns, Army CstArty, etc.) that come stocked with 5 and 6 inch CD guns, that upgrade to 155mm M1918s (Panama Mount type), and eventually to M1A1s – all designated as Naval Guns in the Device file.

But the units (particularly the DefBns) functioned as good old medium arty, so the M1A1s should be ‘Army Weaps’. Then, both the 5”/51 Mk 9 and the 6”/53 Mk 12 had much better specs (as NavWeaps) than the M1918. So what’s with the “upgrade” to the M1918?

Thinking of having permanent harbor/port defenses stick with their 5 and 6 inch CD guns. CstArty can (and did) start out with the M1918, and don’t upgrade; the ballistic performance as a NavWeap (with AP) was very similar between the M1918 and the M1A1. So … have a few M1918s in the device file; some upgrade, some don’t. Some CstArty units get one of the NavWeaps versions and stay there. Some CstArty, and the DefBns get another NavWeaps version and bump up to a M1A1, full boogie Arty device. Some other folks might get a M1918 Arty version that eventually bumps up to Long Tom.

Gun specs also need a bit of help; a confusing mix of Acc, Pen, Eff, with some numbers pulled from HE, some from 1948 HVAAC, woof. Don’t care about the bigger CD guns, but will need to smile and dial on 3” to 6” CDs vis a vis ship weaps and HiV tubes up to 155mm.

This is how we plan to approach it, but anybody out there, with a woodie for this stuff, please feel free to comment.

This is a data mod. There will be NO CODE CHANGES. Wants, desires, complaints about the game system belong somewhere else and will not be entertained here.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> DaBabes - Comment Call Page: [1] 2   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

0.123