Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

 
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 >> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/17/2010 6:09:56 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2324
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Cosmetic bug:

ComAirNoPac arrives in PH
ComAirSoPac arrives in Anchorage

Might want switch those around.



_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 91
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/18/2010 3:21:48 AM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2280
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
Well, I guess the transports I send to take ComAirNoPac to Anchorage can pick up ComAirSoPac and take them to Noumea.  Provided the SoPacers don't freeze to death in their Uniform, Lighweight, Tropical.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 92
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/18/2010 8:47:17 PM   
Weidi72


Posts: 57
Joined: 6/10/2006
Status: offline
Unit 3745 11th BG/431st BG should be 11th BG/431st BS

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 93
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/19/2010 4:04:43 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2324
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
3 of my units are not showing the 81mm mortars; 5084, 8002, 5175. I looked in the editor and see no problems ie they are all pointing to device 1155 but on the unit screen in game there is a blank with just the number of mortars showing. The unit need for supplies is lower on the units not showing the mortars.

Has anybody else noticed this?


_____________________________


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 94
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/20/2010 2:19:23 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 7297
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
I am in late 8/42 and Perth is requesting 85 000 fuel...I don't understand why it'd be doing that.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 95
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/20/2010 2:45:06 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8170
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I am in late 8/42 and Perth is requesting 85 000 fuel...I don't understand why it'd be doing that.


What TFs do you have home ported there?

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 96
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/20/2010 3:02:17 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 7297
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
Right now there are only 2 SC TFs, consisting of 3DDs and 2 DDs with Perth as Home base. But there is quite a lot of shipping disbanded. Might that be the reason? On the other hand, they have been there from fall of DEI and I haven't noticed this before.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 97
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/20/2010 3:23:53 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8170
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Yeah, ships in port are a major portion of fuel requirement.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 98
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/21/2010 6:53:59 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 7297
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
Yea, that was it, problem solved. 

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 99
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/24/2010 2:33:12 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 24381
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
I am in a PBM stock scenario 1, and I've noticed an issue that is also present in "DaBigBabes Full Campaign" (I checked in the editor and saw that it is present).

The issue is this: All the various nationalities have their infantry squads updated periodically. To facilitate managing this the have been given names like "Aus Inf 42", "USA Inf 43", etc. All except the Chinese. Device numbers 1301, 1302, and 1303 are all identically named "Chinese Rifle Squad". This makes it almost impossible to see which LCU's have upgraded versus which ones haven't.

They should be named by the year of availability, as:

device 1301 = "Chinese Rifle Squad 41"
device 1302 = "Chinese Rifle Squad 43"
device 1303 = "Chinese Rifle Squad 45"

While not a Babes errata per se, AFAIK the change would be easy and it sure would help managing an important sector of the war. Please consider it.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 100
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/24/2010 5:28:04 PM   
JWE

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I am in a PBM stock scenario 1, and I've noticed an issue that is also present in "DaBigBabes Full Campaign" (I checked in the editor and saw that it is present).

The issue is this: All the various nationalities have their infantry squads updated periodically. To facilitate managing this the have been given names like "Aus Inf 42", "USA Inf 43", etc. All except the Chinese. Device numbers 1301, 1302, and 1303 are all identically named "Chinese Rifle Squad". This makes it almost impossible to see which LCU's have upgraded versus which ones haven't.

They should be named by the year of availability, as:

device 1301 = "Chinese Rifle Squad 41"
device 1302 = "Chinese Rifle Squad 43"
device 1303 = "Chinese Rifle Squad 45"

While not a Babes errata per se, AFAIK the change would be easy and it sure would help managing an important sector of the war. Please consider it.


Hmmm ... never thought of it that way before; it does make sense. Afraid we did a bit more of that in DaBigBabes. If it's really a ditch we'll sure consider changing it. Anybody else .. ?

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 101
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/24/2010 6:48:46 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I am in a PBM stock scenario 1, and I've noticed an issue that is also present in "DaBigBabes Full Campaign" (I checked in the editor and saw that it is present).

The issue is this: All the various nationalities have their infantry squads updated periodically. To facilitate managing this the have been given names like "Aus Inf 42", "USA Inf 43", etc. All except the Chinese. Device numbers 1301, 1302, and 1303 are all identically named "Chinese Rifle Squad". This makes it almost impossible to see which LCU's have upgraded versus which ones haven't.

They should be named by the year of availability, as:

device 1301 = "Chinese Rifle Squad 41"
device 1302 = "Chinese Rifle Squad 43"
device 1303 = "Chinese Rifle Squad 45"

While not a Babes errata per se, AFAIK the change would be easy and it sure would help managing an important sector of the war. Please consider it.


Hmmm ... never thought of it that way before; it does make sense. Afraid we did a bit more of that in DaBigBabes. If it's really a ditch we'll sure consider changing it. Anybody else .. ?


This is a change I make in the editor. However, there is a limit on the number of characters. I think you can type all you want, but only a certain number of characters will display. I think it's 19. You'd have to type: Chinese Rifle Sq 41 for it to work.

I realize that a decision would have to be made that puts historical accuracy (full spelling) against playability (abbreviated spelling.) If it matters, I agree with witps. It's important to know when you're sending units to attack or defend.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 102
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/24/2010 7:47:23 PM   
Whisper

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 1/20/2008
From: LA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Hmmm ... never thought of it that way before; it does make sense. Afraid we did a bit more of that in DaBigBabes. If it's really a ditch we'll sure consider changing it. Anybody else .. ?

My fault, wrong footed John on this. that would be a good to see to make sure sub units are up to snuff before a recombine.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 103
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/24/2010 9:06:35 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24381
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whisper


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Hmmm ... never thought of it that way before; it does make sense. Afraid we did a bit more of that in DaBigBabes. If it's really a ditch we'll sure consider changing it. Anybody else .. ?

My fault, wrong footed John on this. that would be a good to see to make sure sub units are up to snuff before a recombine.


Yes, and also for combat. There are huge capability differences between some of the equipment levels.

(in reply to Whisper)
Post #: 104
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/24/2010 9:10:56 PM   
drw61


Posts: 893
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
Like bradley7735 I also change the Chinese Rifle Squads in the editor to reflect the year.

(in reply to Whisper)
Post #: 105
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/25/2010 7:45:48 PM   
Whisper

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 1/20/2008
From: LA
Status: offline
I fixed that up and sent it to John, up to him when he posts it but they are easy to do it yourself.

Found a update bug too. Number 716, IJN Constr Eng Sq updates to IJA Const Eng Sq. Number 717 IJN Const Labor Sq updates to IJA Const Labor Sq. This is wrong. They should update to themselves or to 000 None. Another easy to do it yourself.

(in reply to drw61)
Post #: 106
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/25/2010 7:57:44 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24381
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Whisper

I fixed that up and sent it to John, up to him when he posts it but they are easy to do it yourself.



Thanks!

I want DBB to be my next PBM foray, and an opponent might be wary "Oh, and I fixed something myself!"

(in reply to Whisper)
Post #: 107
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 7/25/2010 8:24:27 PM   
Whisper

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 1/20/2008
From: LA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whisper

I fixed that up and sent it to John, up to him when he posts it but they are easy to do it yourself.



Thanks!

I want DBB to be my next PBM foray, and an opponent might be wary "Oh, and I fixed something myself!"

John has a policy about not making revisions for everything that comes up. This is a good poilicy and keeps everything real stable for everybody but I know how it is whaen you play somebody who might not be so trusting as me, (ha ha) .

Here is what I sent to John and what he will have in next update whenever. You and your opponent can download the same zip from here and have the same game and no questions.

It has the wpd squad text updates and the upgrade fix for scenario 28 and 29.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Whisper -- 7/25/2010 8:26:03 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 108
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 8/1/2010 1:31:28 AM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline
I am noticing something about air support with the new version of the mod for playing against the Japanese AI. Could be related to the new patch; I wish I had paid better attention to the sequence I am about to describe

Anyway, I was facing a local emergency against the AI, and I dropped some squadrons into Townsville with less than necessary air support figuring I would rail them out after the emergency was dealt with. Funny thing is that after a few turns I noticed that the squadrons were operating as if they had full support. It has been my experience that broken planes would start to stack up on the field because of the lack of support.

Yeah, it could be the new patch, but I didn't see any advertised changes that would affect support in that category. At the same time, I can't imagine why the Babe's mod would be the cause unless there was invisible air support built into some of the units or bases. And I can't remember if I moved those air units into Townsville before or after the patch which is nearly the least helpful sort of report there is.

Lots of smart people check these Babe threads, so I figure one of you will let me know where to head in with this report.

In general I am enjoying the heck out of the mod and learning how to deal with the tough circumstances faced by the Allies at the start of the campaign -- mainly the lack of naval support that really slows cargo operations. I am also noticing some nice tweaks to the TOE's.

Kudos to the Babe team. It's pretty much what I've been dreaming about since PacWar.

_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to Whisper)
Post #: 109
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 8/1/2010 2:08:35 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 24381
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Even with the new patch I find I need adequate air support. Like you I also can't imagine how a mod would affect that anyway.

(in reply to Central Blue)
Post #: 110
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 8/1/2010 2:52:01 AM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Even with the new patch I find I need adequate air support. Like you I also can't imagine how a mod would affect that anyway.



Yeah, It's a weird one. I've been running Townsville at a deficit for almost a month now and three squadrons of P40's are doing just fine with the 18 aviation support squads from the 6th RAN base force and 8 from the Horn Island base force. I recently moved in the unit from Charter Towers because I felt like I was cheating -- not that the AI complains.

Aside from some early attack missions on the Cairns invasion, they have been flying CAP at 30% each. There have been a few ops losses, but no planes are in endless repair mode. So the planes that were damaged during the attack missions -- not well trained for those missions either -- have all repaired from their damage.

Maybe I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth?

It's just something I don't remember seeing before.



_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 111
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 8/1/2010 10:01:25 AM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2280
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
Could the size of the base help a low number of support be able to repair planes faster?

(in reply to Central Blue)
Post #: 112
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 8/1/2010 5:17:05 PM   
JWE

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
I am noticing something about air support with the new version of the mod for playing against the Japanese AI. Could be related to the new patch; I wish I had paid better attention to the sequence I am about to describe

Anyway, I was facing a local emergency against the AI, and I dropped some squadrons into Townsville with less than necessary air support figuring I would rail them out after the emergency was dealt with. Funny thing is that after a few turns I noticed that the squadrons were operating as if they had full support. It has been my experience that broken planes would start to stack up on the field because of the lack of support.

Yeah, it could be the new patch, but I didn't see any advertised changes that would affect support in that category. At the same time, I can't imagine why the Babe's mod would be the cause unless there was invisible air support built into some of the units or bases. And I can't remember if I moved those air units into Townsville before or after the patch which is nearly the least helpful sort of report there is.

Lots of smart people check these Babe threads, so I figure one of you will let me know where to head in with this report.

In general I am enjoying the heck out of the mod and learning how to deal with the tough circumstances faced by the Allies at the start of the campaign -- mainly the lack of naval support that really slows cargo operations. I am also noticing some nice tweaks to the TOE's.

Kudos to the Babe team. It's pretty much what I've been dreaming about since PacWar.

Well, I ain't that smart, but I'll give it a shot anyway. There's nothing in the new patch that messes with AvSup, so don't think it's that. We tried our very best to remove all the double secret AvSup everywhere in the scenario. Looked at 6th RAN and Horn Island and what you see is what you get (18 + 8).

AvSup works a bit different in different situations. You need both AvSup and supply. You definitely want 1 to 1 AvSup-to-planes to have planes perform their mission properly. It's not really 1 to 1 for repair/maintenance. Lots depends on activity level. A low overall activity level (say, 30% routine CAP, 70% resting) doesn't need AvSup=total planes in all squadrons at base. It's not hard to repair/maintain damaged/fatigued aircraft, if there's only a few, even though you have less than 'optimal' AvSup.

Problems (boneyards) arises when activity level goes up; lots of planes on lots of missions, planes acquiring maintenance fatigue and damage faster than repair/rotation, and things just finally fall off the cliff. Daily routine, low-level, 'stuff' won't stress the support. A 'push', whether offensive or defensive can be covered, short-term, by accepting more aircraft maintenance fatigue and rotating in any reserve aircraft. Sooner or later (sooner) the rug gets pulled out from under.

Again, it's a matter of tempo. Minimal activity can be supported by minimal infrastructure for a long time. Nominal activity can be supported by minimal infrastructure for a short time, till the grease monkeys get tired and the mess hall runs out of sausages - then ... pffft.

_____________________________


(in reply to Central Blue)
Post #: 113
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 8/2/2010 1:56:06 PM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline
Hi JWE. I appreciate your insight on this. It explains what I am seeing around the map.

My current theory is that there was just so much more support available early in the stock version that it was difficult for a person of my conservative druthers to push the envelope on the relationship between support and planes. I though there was a pretty ironclad 1 to 1 relationship between planes and support. Now that I know there's not . . .

I'll admit that it also took me a while to realize that I would need to spend some PP's if I wanted more base groups for Oz in the early days.



_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 114
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 8/2/2010 6:50:18 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
I’m really pleased with your comments and also witpqs’. It sounds like things are working for ya’ll kinda like we thought they would.

Idea was to give just enough to support routine, every day stuff, but as ops tempo increases the cliff edge gets way closer, and if one does “VMF at the Canal” type ops, well … it’s like the guy who fell off a 50 story building; people on the floors he passed heard him say ‘so far, so good’.

There was, indeed, way too much AvSup available in stock. It allowed continuous huge raids and is (ioho) a large contributor to observed skewed combat results because of the huge numbers of participants. There is no blame, no harm, no foul – the OOB and the Air people each did what was appropriate given their own particular circumstances. It was likely just a case of a missed implication. If stock is played conservatively, or even rationally, things work like they should, the window was just too wide on the hi-tempo end.

Wondered if we may have closed it too much, but ya’lls comments are making us feel rather comfy. Thank you. Please keep it up.


_____________________________


(in reply to Central Blue)
Post #: 115
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 8/2/2010 9:16:09 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24381
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Wondered if we may have closed it too much, but ya’lls comments are making us feel rather comfy. Thank you. Please keep it up.



My comment was about AE versus WITP. I don't have a feel specifically for DBB as yet.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 116
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 8/2/2010 10:19:42 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2324
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
I am happy to echo what Central Blue stated, I think its great what you have done. I now have the option to set up satellite fields, open the route to Oz from Palmyra and still have room for defences. The port services units are a god send. I am very happy with the results.

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 117
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 8/7/2010 1:03:49 AM   
noguaranteeofsanity


Posts: 257
Joined: 11/24/2009
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Not sure if it is intentional or a small error, but the following NZ base forces are listed as Australian units in both Dec 7th and Dec 8th scenarios:

6254 Palmerston North Base Force
6255 Waipapakauri Base Force
6256 Gisborne Base Force
6258 Nandi Base Force

It just appears to be those in the North Island and the one in Fiji, the other New Zealand base forces are all Kiwis.

< Message edited by noguaranteeofsanity -- 8/7/2010 1:04:09 AM >

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 118
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 8/7/2010 5:14:06 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: medicff
Love DaBigBabes

Trying to understand new HQ system.

There really isn’t a new HQ system. Different kinds of HQ can “do” different kinds of things. All we did was add a half dozen new Naval District HQ so they could “do” their stuff. Also made I and V Amphib Corps into amphibious corps (HQ type = 31) from regular corps (HQ type = 1). Don’t know whether this was all that good an idea. But that was it.
quote:

US I amphib corps does not show up for avail to assign units to. Necessary for bonus in my understanding.

Units do not need to be assigned to a HQ to get bonuses. Command, Army, Corps HQs give bonus to any unit within its command radius. Amphib HQ gives bonus to amphib assaulting units “in the same hex”.
quote:

Air HQ show up when trying to assign Infantry to other HQ - is this intended. Thought air was for air, ground for ground, etc.

Thanks again
Pat

That happens all the time in stock too; and Naval HQs often show up as well. Not intentional, or unintentional, its just the way it happens.


_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 119
RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata - 8/7/2010 5:58:54 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
With respect to amphib HQs, there’s two things of concern.
1) once they perform their amphib bonus function, may they come ashore and function like a “nominal” corps HQ. We’re still looking, but don’t think so.
2) leader selection is governed by HQ type, and amphib HQs get Naval leaders (like Turner and Uncle Dan the Amphibious man).

In-game, there’s III, V, VII Amphib “Force” as well as I, V Amphib “Corps”. It’s looking more reasonable to have the Phib “Force” HQs be amphibious (type = 31), while having the Phib “Corps” be be nominal (type = 01).

Changing back won’t have much real impact, except that if Howlin Mad Smith gets whacked, he can be replaced by another Marine General instead of an Admiral.


_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

0.238