Brad re.imbarked his 2 divisions from Rabaul.... with a lot of APAs.... if those APAs are there i don't think he has enough to load 30,000 men at Darwin in a single night...another point towards the Southern DEI "feint"
Wrong my Italian friend. Remember you are playing DBB and many of his engineer units have both Naval Support AND Shore Party devices. The screenshot below shows one of two that I have in June '43. I would bet you that one of them is at Darwin. In my game I could unload multiple TFs of troops at Esperance across the beach due to high amounts of NS & SP in one day easily.
The “name” of a device does not matter, only the device data matters. Any Eng unit can always build, but if it has Anti-Armor <1, it cannot reduce forts. If it has Anti-Soft <9, it cannot AV. If it is “named” Construction or Labor Eng, but is a Type = 23 (squad), it will not build. If it also has a-a <1, and a-s <9, it won’t do anything but eat (i.e., nothing but ‘bodies’). So there is a matrix of different Eng squads that represent a mix of abilities; build stuff, reduce forts, able to AV, some of the above, none of the above. DaBigBabes uses this matrix (according to our appreciation as to how it falls out) to help limit in-game tempo, by limiting in-game infrastructure.
Shore Party is a sub-set of Nav Sup. Shore Party devices assist in loading/unloading but do not assist in repairing or rearming. Repair/rearm bases were very far and few between, for both sides, and thus with BigBabes, but both sides recognized an imperative for stevedoring and non-integral lift capability. Thus Shore Partys and a skoosh of code that lets them give an unload bonus to TFs. A Shore Party switch may be set for a Vehicle, such as an LVT-2 Amph Trac; It may be set for a Type = 24 Eng squad, like USA Port Srvc Sq, in which case it may also help build; It may be set for a Type = 23 Squad, like USA Amph Sup Sq.
Check the editor often, and become familiar with all the different kinds of units available. For example:
USMC Pioneer Sq – Squad type – No Build, Yes AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Constr Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, Yes AV, No Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Spec Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Base Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USA Port Svc Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USA Amph Sup Sq – Squad type – No Build, Yes AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
IJA Shipping Eng Sq – Squad type – No Build, No AV, No Reduce Forts, Yes Shore Party, LC = 17
IJA Cmbt Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, Yes AV, Yes Reduce Forts, No Shore Party, LC = 17
IJA Const Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, No Reduce Forts, No Shore Party, LC = 17
IJA Const Labor Sq – Squad type – No Build, No AV, No Reduce Forts, No Shore Party, LC = 20
IJN Const Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, No Reduce Forts, No Shore Party, LC = 17
IJN Const Labor Sq – Squad type – No Build, No AV, No Reduce Forts, No Shore Party, LC = 20
So IJ Const Labor doesn’t 'do' anything and, what’s more, has a larger load cost. This represents the large manual labor component (Chinese/Korean) that results in 1000 man Eng Bns/Rgts without giving much additional capability. Typical IJA Const Bns/Rgts have 32 Const squads (590 ‘men’, 1088 total with the support, etc.), but 16 squads are Const Eng, while 16 are Const Labor. It's a way to have 32 squad (1000 man) Bns/Rgts with half the capability of a corresponding 32 squad Allied unit.
Even though many squad devices don’t ‘do’ anything (and many Eng devices can’t assault), they are still marginally useful (apart from the Eng devices being able to build). Anti-Soft = 8 (typically) so these units may still ‘shoot’ during the pre-assault fire phase. They ‘shoot’ better than the default firepower of a 251 Eng or 252 Sup device, so that’s something.
Different load costs also allow Const Bns/Rgts to be tailored as to troop count and, therefore, loadability and troop population on atolls and small islands.
< Message edited by ny59giants -- 5/11/2013 2:43:36 PM >