DaBigBabes Beta errata

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design, art and sound modding and the game editor for WITP Admiral's Edition.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 12472
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by Sardaukar »

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

JWE, I notice that the USMC Defense Bn's (ie 2484) no longer have USMC squads as a part of their TOE.  Is this by design?

Buck

It that after TOE upgrade? I noticed that those battaillons lose their infantry after upgrade...I just don't know if that is historical or mistake. [:D]
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5187
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

...I noticed that those battaillons lose their infantry after upgrade...I just don't know if that is historical or mistake. [:D]

Historically the Defense Battalions did not have an infantry component. Provisional squads could be formed when needed from available personel (cooks, bakers, supply/service types, etc - every Marine is a rifleman!).

There were some light infantry (and light tank) units formed for attachment to a Defense Battalion under specific circumstances. Some times other units were temporarily attached (like the Raider Companies on Midway). Other times the Defense Battalions were attachments themselves (like Guadalcanal).

Not doing the Land OOB but a lack of Marine Squads (or perhaps a very restricted number) seems realistic.

User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by JWE »

Darn. Don beat me to it. Yeah, what he said. Just as a supplement:

As Sardaukar noted, there’s some ‘infantry’ types in the first TOE (the beach defense MMGs), but these disappear on upgrade. DefBns didn’t really have infantry – but then, every Marine a rifleman – so these were a real witch to model. They evolved twice; first into hard humping Arty Bns, then into AA Bns. A couple (later war) actually had some real infantry individually assigned, and they are represented on an individual unit basis.

So, no, MarDefBns don’t have infantry in the TOE. There’s some shoot-able and AV-able stuff in certain individual units though (Wake, fx).

Btw, we (actually Faustini) ran this by Chuck Melson (the guy who wrote those Condition Red articles), and got his input.
Buck Beach
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Upland,CA,USA

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by Buck Beach »

ORIGINAL: JWE

Darn. Don beat me to it. Yeah, what he said. Just as a supplement:

As Sardaukar noted, there’s some ‘infantry’ types in the first TOE (the beach defense MMGs), but these disappear on upgrade. DefBns didn’t really have infantry – but then, every Marine a rifleman – so these were a real witch to model. They evolved twice; first into hard humping Arty Bns, then into AA Bns. A couple (later war) actually had some real infantry individually assigned, and they are represented on an individual unit basis.

So, no, MarDefBns don’t have infantry in the TOE. There’s some shoot-able and AV-able stuff in certain individual units though (Wake, fx).

Btw, we (actually Faustini) ran this by Chuck Melson (the guy who wrote those Condition Red articles), and got his input.

Thanks guys.

Buck
User avatar
Andrew Brown
Posts: 4082
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hex 82,170
Contact:

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by Andrew Brown »

It is my understanding that in the stock campaign, the Waziristan Division is the container unit for three brigades: Bannu, Khojak and Zhob Brigades. These are Indian invasion reinforcements (but with my map extension they are on map, which is why I am looking at this) I can see the Waziristan Div unit in Da Babes, but not the brigade units. Is this intentional? Or have they been renamed? Or do I misunderstand what these units are?

Andrew
Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

Image
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
It is my understanding that in the stock campaign, the Waziristan Division is the container unit for three brigades: Bannu, Khojak and Zhob Brigades. These are Indian invasion reinforcements (but with my map extension they are on map, which is why I am looking at this) I can see the Waziristan Div unit in Da Babes, but not the brigade units. Is this intentional? Or have they been renamed? Or do I misunderstand what these units are?

Andrew
There were two Waziristan divisions listed in stock; First at 7964 in the India Invasion Reinforcement special section (with no subordinate brigades).

Second at 6835 along with the brigades (which point to 6835). The second one, and all three component brigades were 9999d out (flagged inactive). So, just got rid of them. Kept the first one at 7964 because of the AI and the editor 'special section' rules.

Don't know what's better, kill #1, keep #2, or kill 2 and keep 1. Indian horse cavalry isn't my strong suit [;)]
Buck Beach
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Upland,CA,USA

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by Buck Beach »

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

(but with my map extension they are on map, which is why I am looking at this)

Andrew

Have you made an additional extension map, and if so is it available? I am always interested in anything you do.

Buck
Buck Beach
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Upland,CA,USA

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by Buck Beach »

Don't know if you meant to or not,  but thought I’d mention, that it seems you've left out the Admiral Halstead from the TF 407 at Canton (Plum/Convoy 4002) and the game itself.
http://www.ozatwar.com/pensacola.htm
http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/013_usa/_41_usn/z-convoys/convoy_4002.html
I also find several references of her being in Darwin harbor during the Japanese raid of 2/19/1942.
Buck
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5187
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Don't know if you meant to or not,  but thought I’d mention, that it seems you've left out the Admiral Halstead from the TF 407 at Canton (Plum/Convoy 4002) and the game itself.
http://www.ozatwar.com/pensacola.htm
http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/013_usa/_41_usn/z-convoys/convoy_4002.html
I also find several references of her being in Darwin harbor during the Japanese raid of 2/19/1942.
Buck


Admiral Halstead was indeed historically in the Pensacola Convoy, and I see her there in Scen 028. What scenario are you addressing?
Buck Beach
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Upland,CA,USA

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by Buck Beach »

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Don't know if you meant to or not,  but thought I’d mention, that it seems you've left out the Admiral Halstead from the TF 407 at Canton (Plum/Convoy 4002) and the game itself.
http://www.ozatwar.com/pensacola.htm
http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/013_usa/_41_usn/z-convoys/convoy_4002.html
I also find several references of her being in Darwin harbor during the Japanese raid of 2/19/1942.
Buck


Admiral Halstead was indeed historically in the Pensacola Convoy, and I see her there in Scen 028. What scenario are you addressing?

Boy, do I have mustard on my face!!! Seems like I accidentally wiped her out (in my DBB mod only) when I added a few of the mid to late war Esso's that historically made it to the Pacific. Wonder what else I screwed up,

Very sorry for wasting your time.

Embarrassed Buck
User avatar
Weidi72
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:47 am

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by Weidi72 »

unit 5981, 8th AUS Division has each over 200 aus inf sec AND AIF aif inf sec after recombining. aussault strength nearly 600. seems a little bit too much.
User avatar
Andrew Brown
Posts: 4082
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hex 82,170
Contact:

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by Andrew Brown »

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Have you made an additional extension map, and if so is it available? I am always interested in anything you do.

Buck

Made but not available yet. Still working on it (for a modified Big Babes scenario).

By the way I am also interested in changes you are making or planning. From what I have read they look like interesting changes.

Andrew
Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

Image
User avatar
Andrew Brown
Posts: 4082
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hex 82,170
Contact:

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by Andrew Brown »

ORIGINAL: JWE
There were two Waziristan divisions listed in stock; First at 7964 in the India Invasion Reinforcement special section (with no subordinate brigades).

Second at 6835 along with the brigades (which point to 6835). The second one, and all three component brigades were 9999d out (flagged inactive). So, just got rid of them. Kept the first one at 7964 because of the AI and the editor 'special section' rules.

Don't know what's better, kill #1, keep #2, or kill 2 and keep 1. Indian horse cavalry isn't my strong suit [;)]

Thanks. I missed the duplicate. For my purposes I need the brigades, so I will have to add them (and the division shell) in and remove the Div in slot 7964.

Andrew
Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

Image
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: Weidi72
unit 5981, 8th AUS Division has each over 200 aus inf sec AND AIF aif inf sec after recombining. aussault strength nearly 600. seems a little bit too much.
Thank you. That was an artifact of the hidden default TO&Es. It has been fixed and will be ok in the next update.
ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
Thanks. I missed the duplicate. For my purposes I need the brigades, so I will have to add them (and the division shell) in and remove the Div in slot 7964.
Andrew
We can do that too. Makes things cleaner. Please tell arrival dates and arrival bases for your stuff. We will follow your inputs.

Ciao.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Have you made an additional extension map, and if so is it available? I am always interested in anything you do.

Buck

Made but not available yet. Still working on it (for a modified Big Babes scenario).

By the way I am also interested in changes you are making or planning. From what I have read they look like interesting changes.

Andrew

Andrew,

On the off-chance that it is a map-bug instead of a movement bug, have a look at this (to make sure your new version wouldn't have the same thing):

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2547906

I don't know the verdict because it's awaiting feedback.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Andrew,

On the off-chance that it is a map-bug instead of a movement bug, have a look at this (to make sure your new version wouldn't have the same thing):
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2547906
I don't know the verdict because it's awaiting feedback.
Don't think it's a map bug, witpqs. If you do your <F6> thing, you will see the hex edge between them is nice and green, and <R> shows a nice road. The hotkeys grab data directly from the pwhex file, so something else must happening to generate your problem. Tried to reproduce it, but can't.

Suggest posting a savegame on the Tech forum would be the best solution. [:)]
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: JWE
ORIGINAL: witpqs
Andrew,

On the off-chance that it is a map-bug instead of a movement bug, have a look at this (to make sure your new version wouldn't have the same thing):
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2547906
I don't know the verdict because it's awaiting feedback.
Don't think it's a map bug, witpqs. If you do your <F6> thing, you will see the hex edge between them is nice and green, and <R> shows a nice road. The hotkeys grab data directly from the pwhex file, so something else must happening to generate your problem. Tried to reproduce it, but can't.

Suggest posting a savegame on the Tech forum would be the best solution. [:)]

Did that first thing, thanks.

Yeah, I checked with the F6 key but I figured maybe there is hidden stuff or some combination of terrain. Interestingly, the HQ unit did move direct after combat units from another direction entered the target hex. It's something weird, and it happened twice in that game (same hexes and units). First time I thought I would just try again in case I was nuts and missed something. It's cramping my style - I'm trying to trap dozens of wayward IJA units! It's a 2x2 I stepped into the middle of. China was "challenging". IJA had penetrations past Changsha, invested Changsha and Sian - threatening everywhere. So naturally I attacked. trapped some but the movement system allowed most to get away with a fierce beating.

Anyhow, Babes is looking good! Really want to start a PBM with the next version or so.
henry1611
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:41 pm

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by henry1611 »

ORIGINAL: JWE
ORIGINAL: Weidi72
unit 5981, 8th AUS Division has each over 200 aus inf sec AND AIF aif inf sec after recombining. aussault strength nearly 600. seems a little bit too much.
Thank you. That was an artifact of the hidden default TO&Es. It has been fixed and will be ok in the next update.

I recently started DBB Scenario 29 and am several hours into plotting my first turn with several more to go. Is the "next update" something I should wait for or, as you said with Update #2, is it "Nothing that anybody has to crash an ongoing game for"? I am making steady but very slow progress on the first turn (RL always tends to get in the way of having any fun) and am curious whether I should abandon further work using Update #2 and wait for Update #3 down the road.

Having lurked for quite awhile, it doesn't seem that you miss much but in case it got lost in the mix, I'll bump the following:
ORIGINAL:witp1951

On Scn 29 (Dec 8), the KB has max sorties and max torpedoes available. In stock Scn 6 they do not. Is this intended?


Thanks for all your efforts, which are much appreciated.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by JWE »

Hi Henry1611,

The next update is again just a bunch of “little” things. Stuff to make it go smoother, keep the AI better behaved, fix some things that are a pita, but won’t break the game. No … nothing that one should crash an ongoing game for – just stuff that will make it work a ‘leetle beet’ better the next time someone starts from the beginning - nothing fundamental.

Yeah, the number of sorties remaining for KB in scen 29 has been adjusted.

Ciao.
Buck Beach
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Upland,CA,USA

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by Buck Beach »

ORIGINAL: JWE

Hi Henry1611,

The next update is again just a bunch of “little” things. Stuff to make it go smoother, keep the AI better behaved, fix some things that are a pita, but won’t break the game. No … nothing that one should crash an ongoing game for – just stuff that will make it work a ‘leetle beet’ better the next time someone starts from the beginning - nothing fundamental.

Yeah, the number of sorties remaining for KB in scen 29 has been adjusted.

Ciao.

I know it would be a big pain in the butt JWE, but a follow up list of the changes would sure be helpful. That way we could introduce your changes into our own mods. Save oh so much work don't you know, over using a line by line needles in the haystack comparison of the datas. If not feasible well back to the drawing board.
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”