B-Mod on Andrew Brown's website

[Big B]

Hi all,

I finished my Mod (new rendition of stock scenarios #15 & #16).
They are available here on Andrew Brown's website:
http://www.bur.st/~akbrown/witp/scenarios.html

As an intro, I will paste below the Scenario design Notes:
----------------------------------------------------------
Design Notes on the B Mod; alternate scenarios for stock scenarios #15 and
#16.

The purpose of this mod was to give Non-CHS & RHS players an alternative to
stock scenarios 15 and 16 that also do not require any graphics set changes.
The focus is on adding more (hopefully) historical realism, with emphasis
on the following aspects:


(1) Naval Warships –
All warships have had their armor ratings verified and sometimes
changed to what current publications verify (Conway's, etc.). Also, all
ships from DE's to CV's have had their Durability Ratings standardized.
The method I used was to grant 1 Dur for each 200 tons Standard Displacement
(which is the starting point for stock WitP).

[Note: only Standard Displacement was used, as extra tonnage due to a
full fuel load, stores, and added deck houses, adds no structural strength.
Also, the original standard of a sliding scale of durability between ship
sizes has been maintained by giving all DD's and DE's an additional
point, and all vessels over 20,000 tons no real change. No auxiliaries, AK's,
AP's, TK's, or Patrol Craft have had stock durability touched.]

All AK's, AP's, and TK's have had their capacity reduced by approximately
1/3 (as has been done in several other mods) to help slow down the pace
of operations. However, I have rounded the numbers for ease of calculations
by players.



(2) Air Combat –
Air combat in WitP has long been known to be too generally bloody to be
realistic. I have tackled this in the following manner: All Aircraft
guns have had their Accuracy Ratings re-valued. The original method in
stock WitP was to rate accuracy as the square root of the Rate of Fire of
a weapon, divided by 100. The method I have used was to multiply the
square root of ROF with the square root of Muzzle Velocity, and then divide
by 100. This yields a number around half of what the stock game method
generates, it is also unbiased, and reflects the minute differences in the
weapons themselves. (allowance has been made for all Japanese Fighters that
are armed only with two nose mounted machine guns - such as the Oscar and
the Claude. These planes still have double the accuracy of all other aircraft
weapons - so as to keep them useful and competitive).

The net result of these changes is to significantly lower air combat
losses to more realistic levels, without having a ripple affect on other
aspects of combat involving aircraft and land units or ships.



(3) China –
It has long been recognized that the Chinese Army ‘as represented in
WitP’ is less than half of what China possessed. As China was originally
included in WitP to be an area for ‘on map’ training of the Japanese Air
Forces, the actual size of the Chinese forces was not considered to
be a problem. However, since a decisive land war in Asia is a feature most
players wish to have, a more reflective Chinese OOB was necessary.
Through research I have created a much more representative Chinese OOB (which
essentially doubles the size of the KMT Chinese Army). Also added are
semi-independent CCP Guerilla forces, and Chinese Labor Construction units
(16 to 20 units - depending on the map version, and all of which have no
combat strength), as well as Artillery units, as well as more supply
(CHS Daily supply and stock HI and Res). However, these more numerous
Chinese Army units are much reduced in all heavy weapons - as they were
historically.

The main units in the Chinese Army are now divided into the following:
1) Regional Army Corps and Divisions (based on the standard 4000 - 5000 man
Division, these are the various Warlord's troops and the bulk of the army).
2) Central Army Corps and Divisions (based on information stating that the
Central Army used an 8000 man Division - these are Chiang's politically reliable
KMT troops).
3) Provisional Corps and Divisions.
4) CCP Corps, Divisions, and Guerilla Brigades (these last named CCP Guerilla
Brigades are only the size of raider battalions, meant for harassment only).

The stock game Chinese OOB is:

69 Chinese Inf Corps
4 Chinese Cav Corps
1 Chinese Tank Rgt
18 Chinese Inf DIVs
-------------------
Equivalent to 164 Chinese Divisions

My revised Chinese OOB is:

80 Regional and Provisional Army Inf Corps
24 Regional and Provisional Army Inf DIVs
35 Central Army Inf Corps
10 Central Army Inf DIVs
6 CCP Inf Corps
4 Regional Army Cav Corps
3 Central Army Cav Corps
1 Central Army Tank Rgt
16 Central Army Arty Rgt
16 CCP Guerilla Bde
--------------------
Equivalent to 290 Chinese Divisions

China created some 550 divisions during the long war with Japan, but never
had that many divisions in the field at one time. Since no definitive and
exactly detailed Chinese OOB is readily available in English, I felt Going
for approximately half that number is appropriate.

Not included in the revised Chinese OOB are the approximately 2 million
Chinese troops in Japanese service (mainly in Manchuko). However, since
these troops were not used in Field Armies, nor were they well armed or
trusted by the Japanese, they remain as invisible police units - as are the
extra 1.5 million British Indian troops in India.

This vastly increased China has been counter balanced by the fact that
most of it is static and may not move. Only 20 Chinese Divisions and 30
Chinese Corps start the game mobile. The rest are tied down in static
positions that are immobile – Unless attacked and forced to retreat by
the Japanese. Thus, the Japanese player may ignore the Chinese juggernaut –
so long as he does not activate them himself by attacking them. The idea is
to recreate the quagmire that really existed for Japan in China.
Also Chinese territory has been brought in line with CHS as to the 1941
start lines.



(4) The USSR –
Hand in hand with China, the USSR in stock WitP no longer gets
reinforcements if attacked, nor does it stage units for the Aug 1945 attack.
So - I have added a few reinforcements for the second half of 1943 and I
restored the majority of the large corps that took part in the Manchuria
campaign of 1945 – all of which arrive in June 1945 as in the Manchuria scenario.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have also made the following changes for Historical Accuracy or Game Play:

All BB main guns have had their Rate-Of-Fire slightly increased (in the Data
Base accuracy rating = ROF for naval guns). The stock ROF is from 12 to 20,
this has been raised to 29. This will increase their participation in surface
actions, but still not have as high a ROF as 8* guns.


500 lb and 250kg bombs, devices 203 and 208 respectively - have both have been
slightly enhanced. PBEM experience has amply demonstrated that both devices are
a bit weak in effect on warships (actually my Japanese opponent first suggested
that the 500lbr was just too weak after his CA Myoko was hit a verified 25 times
in one attack by carrier based SBD's using 500 lb'rs and suffered trifling damage
- not much more system damage than is usual from several weeks peaceful steaming).
The solution I used was to raise the pen value of the 500 lbr from 45 to 51,
and to balance this by raising the effect of the 250 kg from 370 to 400. Now both
devices are a bit more to be feared by the enemy - but still in proper
relationship to each other.


Political Points for both sides have been increased from 50 to 100
points daily, to give more freedom of action for each player. (This can
always be easily re-set in the Scenario Editor).


The B-17 monthly replacement rate has been drastically cut from 75 to 20.
(All groups still come in at ½ strength).


F4U-1 Corsairs are No-Longer Carrier Capable.


Fighter aircraft have been a bit re-evaluated. I have gone in favor of weighting
maneuverability (that slippery mystical rating) based more on wing loading -
resulting in NO Allied fighter having a maneuverability rating over 34, while
the KI-43I and II have had their maneuverability increased to 37 and 36 respectively.
Allied fighters greatest strengths are more of speed, armament, and durability.


The KI-43III has been added for 1944 as a replacement for the KI 43II.


The KI-61 Tony now comes in two variants, one in 1942 (armed with 4x.50 mg's) and
the other in 1944 (with 2x .50s and 2x 20mm's).


F4F4 Wildcat production will not begin until March 1942.


The P-26, P-35, P-36,and P-40C (no longer P-40B) are all effectively Out Of
Production at start.


P-40E-1-CU is the main American P-40 variant, and production has
increased to 60 units per month.


The AVG have their own unique aircraft (which they did) - the Curtis H81-2A.
This aircraft has a history of it's own, but in game terms - it has a bit higher
speed and climb than the standard P-40, and is available in limited numbers only
to the AVG (it's replacement aircraft is the standard P-40E).


There are Two P-38F units at start in Los Angeles, these should be left
on the USA West Coast until Oct 1942.


The P-400 has been done away with (as only one unit I found is assigned the
P-400, that unit has been re-equipped with the virtually identical P-39D).
The slot freed up (with the altitude penalty) has been used for a unique P-40E
in the game – this aircraft is used ONLY by USAAFFE units at start, and has
no replacements. The intent is to simulate the lack of Oxygen available to
fighter squadrons in the Philippines, and to keep these units from getting
replacement aircraft – since none were ever shipped to the Philippines
after the war started.


British Royal Navy J-class Destroyers:
Two Missing 0.5" quad AA MG mounts have been added to the J class DDs (RS & LS).
Also, because of the never ending demand for British Destroyer withdrawals for
the entire war - the following four J class DDs will arrive in early 1942
with British CVs: Javelin, Jervis, Kelvin, and Kimberley.


A U.S. Naval Infantry battalion has been added as a reinforcement to
Bataan in early 1942 to recreate the unit that existed and was created from
US Navy personnel on Bataan – and which participated in the 'battle of the
points and pockets' during the siege of Bataan.


A Marine Defense Bn detachment and a small USN Base Force have been added
to Guam at scen start (as historically they were there).


U.S.M.C. Divisions have had the total number of Infantry Squads brought
up to 364 Div /121 Rgt., just as a U.S. Army Div does. This has brought the
strength of the division back up to what it should be (19,000 men without
combat attachments) and accurately reflects the 25% greater manpower in the
organic Rifle Companies of a Marine Div (compared to a U.S. Army Division).


Bombay India (in the Stock Map scenarios) or Aden (in the Andrew Brown Extended
Map Scenarios) - has been given the option to expand its ship repair yard to
a maximum level of 100, this is the only Allied yard in the game that may
expand. The reason for this is that British naval units in India do not
have the option in WitP to sail back to the US East coast or Britain for
repairs, and must instead sail to the US West coast instead - this is
actually farther (and more dangerous) than returning to the Atlantic. Also,
Bombay had major ship repair facilities, greater than reflected in the stock game.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Final Notes:

My Original idea was to incorporate the Nik Mod for aircraft changes,
but after securing Nikademus’s permission to do so, it became apparent that
it would be impractical to implement along side the other changes I was
making, because of the ripple effect on so many other systems that I didn't want
to touch. So I proceeded with a combination of some of his ideas and my own methods,
as well as borrowing from CHS and Andrew Brown.

The Stock Map Scenarios are meant for players who use stock map, or Subchaser's
map - that is - players who have not wished to change to CHS map (AB) and graphic set.
The Andrew Brown Extended Map Scenarios are for those who have already installed
this map package - but it is still intended for stock graphic set (Map Mod Option #3).
Personally, I think the Andrew Brown Extended Map Scenarios are the best, not only
for the map - but they also take advantage of Andrew's great work on his scenarios
#125 and #126 which are rich in detail for the South Pacific, New Guinea, DEI,
Australia New Zealand, CBI, and Canada areas.

I have deliberately NOT gone with an exclusive graphic set of aircraft for this
mod (though one has been made), so as not to require any player change anything
in their stock game.

Well over 200 hours of play testing have gone into this effort....
However - errors are always possible - so any and all feedback from anyone who
tries any scenario will be welcome.

Playtesters - Kadrin, BluesBob, and Big B

A special thanks to Andrew Brown for his assistance in the conversion work he did
so graciously, to Treespider for his advice on China, and to Kadrin for his time
devoted to playtesting and scenario detail and design work.


Hope anyone who tries it - enjoys it.

Big B

[FeurerKrieg]

(2) Air Combat –
Air combat in WitP has long been known to be too generally bloody to be
realistic. I have tackled this in the following manner: All Aircraft
guns have had their Accuracy Ratings re-valued. The original method in
stock WitP was to rate accuracy as the square root of the Rate of Fire of
a weapon, divided by 100. The method I have used was to multiply the
square root of ROF with the square root of Muzzle Velocity, and then divide
by 100. This yields a number around half of what the stock game method
generates, it is also unbiased, and reflects the minute differences in the
weapons themselves. (allowance has been made for all Japanese Fighters that
are armed only with two nose mounted machine guns - such as the Oscar and
the Claude. These planes still have double the accuracy of all other aircraft
weapons - so as to keep them useful and competitive).

The net result of these changes is to significantly lower air combat
losses to more realistic levels, without having a ripple affect on other
aspects of combat involving aircraft and land units or ships.

This certainly sounds interesting, have you tried it out much?

[treespider]

Congrats...will definitely check this one out.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

(2) Air Combat –
Air combat in WitP has long been known to be too generally bloody to be
realistic. I have tackled this in the following manner: All Aircraft
guns have had their Accuracy Ratings re-valued. The original method in
stock WitP was to rate accuracy as the square root of the Rate of Fire of
a weapon, divided by 100. The method I have used was to multiply the
square root of ROF with the square root of Muzzle Velocity, and then divide
by 100. This yields a number around half of what the stock game method
generates, it is also unbiased, and reflects the minute differences in the
weapons themselves. (allowance has been made for all Japanese Fighters that
are armed only with two nose mounted machine guns - such as the Oscar and
the Claude. These planes still have double the accuracy of all other aircraft
weapons - so as to keep them useful and competitive).

The net result of these changes is to significantly lower air combat
losses to more realistic levels, without having a ripple affect on other
aspects of combat involving aircraft and land units or ships.

This certainly sounds interesting, have you tried it out much?

Yes, I spent the majorty of those couple hundred playtesting hours working on air combat, and it definately helps.

I will say this though, to get really consistant historical level air combat results - YOU MUST LOWER STARTING EXPERIENCE TO 70 OR LESS FOR EVERYONE.

Unfortunately - I believed that doing so (especially for the high experience Japanese air units) would alienate many people - so I gritted my teeth and did NOT go that far.[:(]

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Congrats...will definitely check this one out.

Thanks Treespider - and I was sincere about about the value of your input.[;)]

B

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Big B
Yes, I spent the majorty of those couple hundred playtesting hours working on air combat, and it definately helps.

I will say this though, to get really consistant historical level air combat results - YOU MUST LOWER STARTING EXPERIENCE TO 70 OR LESS FOR EVERYONE.

I would be very interested to hear more about your testing. I reduced pilot experience across the board for the "experimental" version of CHS, which was created for the very reason of testing the effect of such changes on air combat, and I did very little testing at all, I will freely admit (The scenario is a "testbed").

Andrew

[FeurerKrieg]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Big B
Yes, I spent the majorty of those couple hundred playtesting hours working on air combat, and it definately helps.

I will say this though, to get really consistant historical level air combat results - YOU MUST LOWER STARTING EXPERIENCE TO 70 OR LESS FOR EVERYONE.

I would be very interested to hear more about your testing. I reduced pilot experience across the board for the "experimental" version of CHS, which was created for the very reason of testing the effect of such changes on air combat, and I did very little testing at all, I will freely admit (The scenario is a "testbed").

Andrew

So haev you recieved any comments on the experimental version yet Andrew?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg
So haev you recieved any comments on the experimental version yet Andrew?

I have seen a few comments stating that it is performing very well, which is encouraging, but I look forward to getting more feedback. I don't think there are a lot of people playing it, however (I hoped to start a game myself but I am a bit too busy at the moment due to an impending move to Europe for 6 months).

[GaryChildress]

Looks impressive Big B! You definitely did your homework on this one! [:)]

EDIT: China will definitely be a quagmire and I like your idea of making units static so that the Japanese player can ignore much of it if he wishes.

[Mike Scholl]

" (allowance has been made for all Japanese Fighters that
are armed only with two nose mounted machine guns - such as the Oscar and
the Claude. These planes still have double the accuracy of all other aircraft
weapons - so as to keep them useful and competitive)."

And the same was done for the P-38? Or is it just a "Japanese fan-boy" thing?

[Kadrin]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

" (allowance has been made for all Japanese Fighters that
are armed only with two nose mounted machine guns - such as the Oscar and
the Claude. These planes still have double the accuracy of all other aircraft
weapons - so as to keep them useful and competitive)."

And the same was done for the P-38? Or is it just a "Japanese fan-boy" thing?

Only for Japanese fighters.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

" (allowance has been made for all Japanese Fighters that
are armed only with two nose mounted machine guns - such as the Oscar and
the Claude. These planes still have double the accuracy of all other aircraft
weapons - so as to keep them useful and competitive)."

And the same was done for the P-38? Or is it just a "Japanese fan-boy" thing?

"B" Please let me appologise for the "fan-boy" bit. It was late, I'd had some wine, and I took it out of context before reading your entire post. But I do have a serious comment on this as well. The Major weakness of the Claude, Nate, Oscar, et al was their miserable armament (or lack thereof.) Why "fix" it? You didn't go in and add superchargers to the P-39's, or extend the range of the F4f's. Why is it OK "to keep them useful and competitive" only if it's on the Japanese side? Your overall goal seems to have been to make the game more "realistic" in it's events - and I agree with you about keeping the "experiance levels" under 70 (how much experiance can you gain shooting up the Chinese?). But why did you feel you had to make this exception? I'm curious...

[Kadrin]

I can't exactly answer for Big B, but having done over a hundred hours of testing on his Air Combat mod myself, I can tell you the results are more realistic with their accuracy untouched. When they were taken down along with the others, their performance was below what they should have achieved.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Kadrin

I can't exactly answer for Big B, but having done over a hundred hours of testing on his Air Combat mod myself, I can tell you the results are more realistic with their accuracy untouched. When they were taken down along with the others, their performance was below what they should have achieved.

Which would imply that the same was true for ALL A/C, but it showed up the most in these models. A real "fix" should work for everything, shouldn't it?

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

" (allowance has been made for all Japanese Fighters that
are armed only with two nose mounted machine guns - such as the Oscar and
the Claude. These planes still have double the accuracy of all other aircraft
weapons - so as to keep them useful and competitive)."

And the same was done for the P-38? Or is it just a "Japanese fan-boy" thing?

"B" Please let me apologies for the "fan-boy" bit. It was late, I'd had some wine, and I took it out of context before reading your entire post. But I do have a serious comment on this as well. The Major weakness of the Claude, Nate, Oscar, et al was their miserable armament (or lack thereof.) Why "fix" it? You didn't go in and add superchargers to the P-39's, or extend the range of the F4f's. Why is it OK "to keep them useful and competitive" only if it's on the Japanese side? Your overall goal seems to have been to make the game more "realistic" in it's events - and I agree with you about keeping the "experience levels" under 70 (how much experience can you gain shooting up the Chinese?). But why did you feel you had to make this exception? I'm curious...

Mike, my dear fellow, no apology needed. I almost had to chuckle when I read your original post. When I posted this mod, I was expecting to be excoriated by everyone (or ignored all together, silence can be deafening) - I feel warm and fuzzy compared to my expectations.

Your question is a good one and deserves an answer, so -
The reason I did what I did for the Oscar/Nate/Claude (especially the Oscar which the Japanese must rely on for a while) is because when their armament was rated like the rest of the aircraft armament they where summarily slaughtered by any opposition. Doubling (relatively speaking) the acc of their guns let them hit far more often - though their firepower is still so weak they don't shoot down so many planes as they mange to damage them - I didn't touch the "effect" field.
But I also had to increase their maneuverability rating as well to give them a chance in combat.
So it was actually the double effect of gun accuracy and maneuverability increases that helped them be more effective.

I say "them" but the only aircraft that got a good dose of maneuver increase and, a little speed , was the Oscar. The Nates and Claudes are still way too slow to be effective - As They Should Be...they were not at all effective.

From an historical aspect - I felt the Oscar should be more effective than my mod was making it(not that it's all that great in stock), and now in the game it will hold it's own with Buffalos, etc - especially when having it's opposition outnumbered.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Kadrin

I can't exactly answer for Big B, but having done over a hundred hours of testing on his Air Combat mod myself, I can tell you the results are more realistic with their accuracy untouched. When they were taken down along with the others, their performance was below what they should have achieved.

Which would imply that the same was true for ALL A/C, but it showed up the most in these models. A real "fix" should work for everything, shouldn't it?

Like I said above, they (the Oscar) performed better only after gun, maneuverability, and modest speed increases. A dominating aircraft - it still isn't, I was just trying to Keep the Oscar from being slaughtered like it was in "Mig Alley" every time it ran into fighters.
I didn't need to do a "nose armament bonus" (though I thought about it - I may do something along those lines someday as part of another experiment) for the P-38/P39 because they didn't behave as lambs to the slaughter like the Oscar did.

The Problem with the air combat model is - we really don't know just what the formula is.
All we can do is observe a broad sample of results, and then experiment. - We Do Know that Stock WitP is way too bloody.

After a lot of observation, I tend to agree with Nikademus that the prime determinant in this air combat model is actually speed - or speed is at least as important as maneuverability.

Obviously, firepower plays it's part too as does durability and armor. And one can't forget Experience - which is absolutely a huge factor as well (I'm tending to believe that when opposing aircraft are somewhat close in speed and maneuverability - experience is the factor that matters far more than any other, but when speed is far greater for one aircraft - nothing will help the other aircraft...just my thoughts from what I've seen so far).

What ever the air combat formulas are - they are definitely complex, and no one thing will "quick fix it".

B

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Big B
Yes, I spent the majorty of those couple hundred playtesting hours working on air combat, and it definately helps.

I will say this though, to get really consistant historical level air combat results - YOU MUST LOWER STARTING EXPERIENCE TO 70 OR LESS FOR EVERYONE.

I would be very interested to hear more about your testing. I reduced pilot experience across the board for the "experimental" version of CHS, which was created for the very reason of testing the effect of such changes on air combat, and I did very little testing at all, I will freely admit (The scenario is a "testbed").

Andrew

Hi Andrew,
What I observed when lowering experience levels to the 50s-60s range was that the results of most any air combat dropped the kill rates dramatically.

Unfortunately I do not have the long string of combat reports I once did, but to summarize, if the level of combat was 1 squadron vs 1 squadron (15 a/c vs 20 a/c) you would expect to see 0 to 4 losses per side. If the numbers engaged were doubled (30 a/c to 50 a/c) you would typically see maybe 6 to 12 a/c lost per side. And for the massive air battles of 100 a/c per side (where WitP is weakest) you could expect to see around 33% losses per side.

Now, there most definately IS a random factor in each battle that makes each one unpredictable - kind of a Forrest Gump Factor (Air Battles are like a box of chocolates - you never know what you're gonna get), but in the long run, trends will stay within the bounds I described above.

Another benefit I observed was that with kills lower and losses usually accruing to both sides - I didn't see air units massing experince and becomming "uber". Usually it was a few pilots getting better while replacements came and went.

B

EDIT: Important Disclaimer - the results I sited above were only in conjunction with my lowering of weapon accuracy.

[mefi]

Big B - what results did you observe with regards to intercepting bombers? Were they historically acceptable? I'm also interested in any changes to Flak power?

Just about to restart a game vs the AI, so trying to choose the right mod and scenario for a decent attempt to match Japan vs the Allies.

[Big B]

bump


EDIT: A quick question my friend - Which side were you going to take against the AI? It makes a difference...

[mefi]

Thanks Big B. That definitely helped. I was concerned about the impact on shooting bombers down from some of the changes you have made. Seems like there was no need to hold off playing.

Looking forward to it


edit - was thinking of Japan? If you'd recommend allies, then I'll go for that..

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Big B

bump


EDIT: A quick question my friend - Which side were you going to take against the AI? It makes a difference...