Matrix Games Forums

More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patchNew Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge UpdateCommand gets a huge update!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

DaBig Babes Ship Conversions.

 
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 >> DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/24/2012 8:00:31 PM   
rjopel

 

Posts: 572
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Peterborough, UK
Status: offline
I'm playing the DaBigBabes 7 Dec start and I'm looking at ship conversion in Tracker. Tracker says the Castle AMc can be upgraded to either Castle AG or Castle ACM. When I open a Castle AMc I can't convert to either of these options.
Post #: 1
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/24/2012 9:23:05 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1219
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel

I'm playing the DaBigBabes 7 Dec start and I'm looking at ship conversion in Tracker. Tracker says the Castle AMc can be upgraded to either Castle AG or Castle ACM. When I open a Castle AMc I can't convert to either of these options.


rjopel -

I fired up AE with DBB scn28C v10, and went to a 11 Dec 41 turn.

Also pulled up the AE editor info:

Castle AMc ID 195
Conversion Bind 282
Castle AG ID 197 allowed 12/41
Castle ACM ID 280 allowed 12/41.

Conversion Delay 12 / Shipyard Size 0

In game, AMc Sholapur (Castle) is anchored at Bombay (size 20 Repair Yard).

However, no conversion is shown on the ship menu. I do not have an answer for you, but your question does have my full attention; I am probably missing something obvious. Will have to wait for one of the Babes Team (Don or JWE?) to give an explanation and clarify.

Mac


< Message edited by Mac Linehan -- 3/24/2012 9:25:34 PM >


_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to rjopel)
Post #: 2
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/24/2012 9:44:21 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8136
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan

quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel

I'm playing the DaBigBabes 7 Dec start and I'm looking at ship conversion in Tracker. Tracker says the Castle AMc can be upgraded to either Castle AG or Castle ACM. When I open a Castle AMc I can't convert to either of these options.


rjopel -

I fired up AE with DBB scn28C v10, and went to a 11 Dec 41 turn.

Also pulled up the AE editor info:

Castle AMc ID 195
Conversion Bind 282
Castle AG ID 197 allowed 12/41
Castle ACM ID 280 allowed 12/41.

Conversion Delay 12 / Shipyard Size 0

In game, AMc Sholapur (Castle) is anchored at Bombay (size 20 Repair Yard).

However, no conversion is shown on the ship menu. I do not have an answer for you, but your question does have my full attention; I am probably missing something obvious. Will have to wait for one of the Babes Team (Don or JWE?) to give an explanation and clarify.

Mac



I think this may be due to the specified nationalities of the class and ship.

Not 100% sure I'm looking at the same scenario but if the class is New Zealand and the ship is Indian, the conversion is not valid.

Validity works pretty much the other way. If one wants a class/conversion to be useable by multiple British Commonwealth naitons, the class should be British.

Basically, the code will OK a class/ship match if:

Class and ship are defined as the same nationality.
or
Class is British and ship is Australian or New Zealand or Indian or Canadian or Commonwealth
or
Class is US and ship is Philippines

Perhaps the code should be more lenient (I no longer recall why the restriction was put in) or the scenario should be changed. Does sorta look like a trap for a scenario designer, doesn't it?

(in reply to Mac Linehan)
Post #: 3
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/24/2012 9:52:59 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1219
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan

quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel

I'm playing the DaBigBabes 7 Dec start and I'm looking at ship conversion in Tracker. Tracker says the Castle AMc can be upgraded to either Castle AG or Castle ACM. When I open a Castle AMc I can't convert to either of these options.


rjopel -

I fired up AE with DBB scn28C v10, and went to a 11 Dec 41 turn.

Also pulled up the AE editor info:

Castle AMc ID 195
Conversion Bind 282
Castle AG ID 197 allowed 12/41
Castle ACM ID 280 allowed 12/41.

Conversion Delay 12 / Shipyard Size 0

In game, AMc Sholapur (Castle) is anchored at Bombay (size 20 Repair Yard).

However, no conversion is shown on the ship menu. I do not have an answer for you, but your question does have my full attention; I am probably missing something obvious. Will have to wait for one of the Babes Team (Don or JWE?) to give an explanation and clarify.

Mac



I think this may be due to the specified nationalities of the class and ship.

Not 100% sure I'm looking at the same scenario but if the class is New Zealand and the ship is Indian, the conversion is not valid.

Validity works pretty much the other way. If one wants a class/conversion to be usable by multiple British Commonwealth Nations, the class should be British.

Basically, the code will OK a class/ship match if:

Class and ship are defined as the same nationality.
or
Class is British and ship is Australian or New Zealand or Indian or Canadian or Commonwealth
or
Class is US and ship is Philippines

Perhaps the code should be more lenient (I no longer recall why the restriction was put in) or the scenario should be changed. Does sorta look like a trap for a scenario designer, doesn't it?



Don -

Thank You for your immediate response, your comments make sense. Will have to edit and move the Castle AMc around (to a port of a different nationality) and see what happens.

Or - it could be Japanese Agents at work... They can be nefarious little rascalsi!

Mac

< Message edited by Mac Linehan -- 3/24/2012 9:54:57 PM >


_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 4
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/25/2012 1:16:17 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8136
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Not the port Mac. It's the assigned nationalities of the ship and the class. It's a New Zealand Class and Indian ships assigned to it will not convert.

(in reply to Mac Linehan)
Post #: 5
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/25/2012 3:07:38 AM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1219
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
Don -

Crystal Clear - thanks for the clarification, Sir!

Mac

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 6
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/25/2012 7:25:11 AM   
rjopel

 

Posts: 572
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Peterborough, UK
Status: offline
So if the Castle AMc(195) and Castle AG (197) are changed to British the conversions would work for all Commenwealth then correct?

Will this be available in the next update?

(in reply to Mac Linehan)
Post #: 7
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/25/2012 7:50:20 AM   
rjopel

 

Posts: 572
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Peterborough, UK
Status: offline
I changed the Castle AMc(195) and Castle AG (197) to NATIONALITY=British and changed Castle ACM (280) to UPGRADE=280 and was able to convert both NZ and Indian ships to ACM's.

(in reply to rjopel)
Post #: 8
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/25/2012 7:51:24 AM   
rjopel

 

Posts: 572
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Peterborough, UK
Status: offline
Would it be possible to fix an ongoing game or would this break something?

(in reply to rjopel)
Post #: 9
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/25/2012 10:56:21 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1219
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel

I changed the Castle AMc(195) and Castle AG (197) to NATIONALITY=British and changed Castle ACM (280) to UPGRADE=280 and was able to convert both NZ and Indian ships to ACM's.


rjopel -

While I have learned much while experimenting with the editor, I have not yet tried my hand at conversions.

Thank You for your very clear post, I will do the same with my game.

Mac

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to rjopel)
Post #: 10
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/25/2012 11:55:38 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Yeah, gosh, golly, gee whiz. Maybe the Indian trawlers aren't supposed to convert into something else. Heck, I really dunno.

You got some realistic (not internet) sources that say different, be glad to tweak things for you. Otherwise, Don has a good editor method for doing what you want. Ciao.

< Message edited by JWE -- 3/26/2012 12:23:07 AM >


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to rjopel)
Post #: 11
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/26/2012 12:22:23 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8136
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Heck, it looks like Sholapur (or Shalapore) was not even completed!

Two points:

1. The nationality of conversion classes is an excellent tool to specify conversions that one nation made and other(s) did not.

2. It is a trap for the unwary scenario designed. This one ought to go in the "Watch Out" list.



< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 3/26/2012 12:24:29 AM >

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 12
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/26/2012 12:25:42 AM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Then we're in seriously deep poopie, Bro. Maybe da bo'fus be borked.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 13
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/26/2012 1:19:22 AM   
rjopel

 

Posts: 572
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Peterborough, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yeah, gosh, golly, gee whiz. Maybe the Indian trawlers aren't supposed to convert into something else. Heck, I really dunno.

You got some realistic (not internet) sources that say different, be glad to tweak things for you. Otherwise, Don has a good editor method for doing what you want. Ciao.



Quite possible, but they managed to mainain the minefields throughout the war didn't they?

Since we don't have (in the game) whatever they were using to maintain the fields this seems the correct choice. Even with this they need 12 ships to maintain the fields deployed in India alone. They only have 10 Castle class ships at start and nothing on the build stocks.

Austraila needs 16 to maintain the fields, NZ needs 4. Australia has 15 available to convert and 3 ACM's at start. NZ has 5 at start and builds 10 ships during the war. Canada has no ability to maintain it's fields.

I'm open for ideas.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 14
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/26/2012 3:52:44 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8136
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yeah, gosh, golly, gee whiz. Maybe the Indian trawlers aren't supposed to convert into something else. Heck, I really dunno.

You got some realistic (not internet) sources that say different, be glad to tweak things for you. Otherwise, Don has a good editor method for doing what you want. Ciao.



Quite possible, but they managed to mainain the minefields throughout the war didn't they?

Since we don't have (in the game) whatever they were using to maintain the fields this seems the correct choice. Even with this they need 12 ships to maintain the fields deployed in India alone. They only have 10 Castle class ships at start and nothing on the build stocks.

Austraila needs 16 to maintain the fields, NZ needs 4. Australia has 15 available to convert and 3 ACM's at start. NZ has 5 at start and builds 10 ships during the war. Canada has no ability to maintain it's fields.

I'm open for ideas.


All I can say is the ships you want were not there historically. I have no idea how the British maintained their minefields, or even if they did. But the British Navy of World War II did not contain minefield tenders (except the three in the RAN).

(in reply to rjopel)
Post #: 15
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/26/2012 5:53:29 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5618
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
It is quite possible they simply replenished them in the early war.  Then after Midway, do we even know how long the West Coast minefields were maintained?  Were they still in place in the LA basin in 1945?  I got nothing that speaks to them.  Maintaining a minefield for a port is a big hassle and really cuts down on the traffic flow in and out ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 16
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/26/2012 7:32:38 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
When this game was being developed, we purposely undertook to limit the possibility of "mines in the Pacific". The game algorithm for mine warfare is the most abstract. There was absolutely no desire, whatever, on the part of anyone, to redo it: tons of work for a minimalist reward?

There are scads of historical minefield types; controlled mines, laid mines, air-dropped mines, and they all have different stuff and we just didn't care. A minefield is a minefield. And they all decay according to the game code, even though some types of them didn't irl.

The game engine populates certain places with minefields at game start, but did those all places actually have minefields? No. So complaining about the lack of LCMs at places where there weren't any mines anyway is a bit strained. This is a strategic/tactical model of the flow of the Pacific war. You need to put mines into their proper perspective.

[ed] I truly think Don's editor tweak is the way for you to go. Will the main game ever do this? No. Will Babes ever do this? No. You want to do this, the editor flexibility is there for you.

< Message edited by JWE -- 3/26/2012 7:45:33 PM >


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to rjopel)
Post #: 17
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/26/2012 10:14:41 PM   
rjopel

 

Posts: 572
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Peterborough, UK
Status: offline
What brought the whole topic up for me was the tracker listing of these conversions being available, but yet not having a single ship available for me to convert. If in fact the RN, RIN, and others never converted these ships to that mission I'm fine with not being able to do it. If the game engine puts mines at start in ports that never had them I won't worry about it. I simply thought it was a coding error in the database.

Thanks for the insight on the issues.

Ryan

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 18
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/26/2012 11:03:38 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1219
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

When this game was being developed, we purposely undertook to limit the possibility of "mines in the Pacific". The game algorithm for mine warfare is the most abstract. There was absolutely no desire, whatever, on the part of anyone, to redo it: tons of work for a minimalist reward?

There are scads of historical minefield types; controlled mines, laid mines, air-dropped mines, and they all have different stuff and we just didn't care. A minefield is a minefield. And they all decay according to the game code, even though some types of them didn't irl.

The game engine populates certain places with minefields at game start, but did those all places actually have minefields? No. So complaining about the lack of LCMs at places where there weren't any mines anyway is a bit strained. This is a strategic/tactical model of the flow of the Pacific war. You need to put mines into their proper perspective.

[ed] I truly think Don's editor tweak is the way for you to go. Will the main game ever do this? No. Will Babes ever do this? No. You want to do this, the editor flexibility is there for you.


JWE -

Thank You for the insight; I did wonder why mine tenders were far and few between on the Allied side of the pond. Your thoughts and comments have cleared that up. I do understand and respect the design intent of the Babes Team. If a player should choose otherwise, there is always the awesome editor.

Don - very much appreciate your input. Babes sticks with the reality, and this is a good thing.

Mac

< Message edited by Mac Linehan -- 3/26/2012 11:05:09 PM >


_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 19
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/26/2012 11:06:55 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1219
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

It is quite possible they simply replenished them in the early war.  Then after Midway, do we even know how long the West Coast minefields were maintained?  Were they still in place in the LA basin in 1945?  I got nothing that speaks to them.  Maintaining a minefield for a port is a big hassle and really cuts down on the traffic flow in and out ...


Pax -

Always appreciate your line of thought; it seems most logical.

Mac

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 20
RE: DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. - 3/29/2012 2:43:15 AM   
dwg

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline
There's a good summary of RN mining ops here: http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Ops-Minelaying.htm

For the Far East, mining seems to have been done initially by the DDs with minelaying conversions (they needed a day or two to switch back and forth) and a couple of impressed merchants, and other than at Hong Kong and Singapore, neither of which turned out to need a great deal of ongoing maintenance, was fairly restricted.

The same site has the war diaries for Eastern Fleet, which mention the mining operations. http://www.naval-history.net/xDKWD-EF1941ChinaStation.htm http://www.naval-history.net/xDKWD-EF1942.htm

There's part of a document on Australian minelaying here: http://www.navyhistory.org.au/ran-minelaying-effort-during-ww2/ It doesn't cover ops, but the title does seem to indicate that Bungaree was Australia's only minelayer, which presumably indicates efforts were fairly limited.

(Another interesting find at the Naval History site is http://www.naval-history.net/xBW-RNNavalParties.htm which lists RN Naval Parties - everything from COPP special forces doing covert beach survey to Port Parties)



< Message edited by dwg -- 3/29/2012 2:57:47 AM >

(in reply to Mac Linehan)
Post #: 21
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> DaBig Babes Ship Conversions. Page: [1]
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

0.094