DaBigBabes Beta errata

[LargeSlowTarget]

According to some sources, the Teapa was the ex USS Worden while the USS Putnam was converted into a fourth "Banana boat" called Tabasco. She was wrecked on a reef in 1933. But as long as the three survivors are in AE with their correct names - who cares [;)].

Regarding the bases sizes - I share the concerns about overbuilding bases like Kokoda. But I understand that DaBigBabes is designed for Human vs. Japanese AI or human vs. human, so all that would be needed is self-restraint resp. a house rule.

Actually base sizes are my biggest "gripe" concerning AE at the moment. In my personal DBB variant I have added the above mentioned bases, but at the same time also downgraded existing ones. Ontong Java as prime example has an airbase potential of 2, which I consider as being way too generous. I also downgraded the dot bases in the Solomons - otherwise the Allies could just seize one or two undefended dot bases (since Japan cannot possible defend all the locations), build size 6 airbases and move on without the epic struggle for Guadalcanal ever taking place. Problem is that we have 20/20 hindsight and know a lot more about the local topography, while in 1942 little was known about the area and potential airbase locations had to be discovered first. Today there are airfields almost everywhere, but I like to narrow down the choices and "force" the use of the historical locations. But that is a matter of taste.

One last thing: In AE, I miss the small coastal craft ("schooners") from CHS. I find them useful for early war evacuations (they have been used for this in the PNG area) and as "ersatz"-barges for the Allies, until the landing craft arrive.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
According to some sources, the Teapa was the ex USS Worden while the USS Putnam was converted into a fourth "Banana boat" called Tabasco. She was wrecked on a reef in 1933. But as long as the three survivors are in AE with their correct names - who cares [;)].

Regarding the bases sizes - I share the concerns about overbuilding bases like Kokoda. But I understand that DaBigBabes is designed for Human vs. Japanese AI or human vs. human, so all that would be needed is self-restraint resp. a house rule.

Actually base sizes are my biggest "gripe" concerning AE at the moment. In my personal DBB variant I have added the above mentioned bases, but at the same time also downgraded existing ones. Ontong Java as prime example has an airbase potential of 2, which I consider as being way too generous. I also downgraded the dot bases in the Solomons - otherwise the Allies could just seize one or two undefended dot bases (since Japan cannot possible defend all the locations), build size 6 airbases and move on without the epic struggle for Guadalcanal ever taking place. Problem is that we have 20/20 hindsight and know a lot more about the local topography, while in 1942 little was known about the area and potential airbase locations had to be discovered first. Today there are airfields almost everywhere, but I like to narrow down the choices and "force" the use of the historical locations. But that is a matter of taste.

We did add a couple bases in Malaysia (Ulan Melintang and Port Swettenham) to kinda support the barge movement down the West coast. And added a couple in Java (Cheribon and 'I forget') that were kinda important. So why the heck not look at cannibal country, too. Gotta have somewhere for the cargo cult to take root, yeah? We'll look - promise.

[ed] I like the idea of reviewing the dot hex maximums. Even though we try to be as historical as possible, DaBabes is also a matter of our particular taste. We, too, appreciate narrowing of choices and 'encouraging' the use of more historical ones. Sounds like your idea of curry fits pretty well on the plate.

One last thing: In AE, I miss the small coastal craft ("schooners") from CHS. I find them useful for early war evacuations (they have been used for this in the PNG area) and as "ersatz"-barges for the Allies, until the landing craft arrive.

They are in the Art pack, just not in the OOB. Maybe set some up as xAP types with a 200 troop cap - that would also give ya a 33 ton cargo cap with cross loading. About right for a 120' topsail schooner. Aim to please.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: JWE

They are in the Art pack, just not in the OOB. Maybe set some up as xAP types with a 200 troop cap - that would also give ya a 33 ton cargo cap with cross loading. About right for a 120' topsail schooner. Aim to please.

D'oh - stupid me has copied the schooner art files from CHS into AE... Thanks for the hint [&o]. I have made them xAKs with a capacity of 150 cargo and 50 troop. I "upped" the cargo capacity because I intend to use those schooners to transport fuel to the forward PT bases. PTs and small craft should not require fuel oil but supplies (compare to avgas), but well, that's the way it is.

I appreciate that you will look into the other suggestions - could not ask for more for my 10th birthday on this forum [;)].

On this occasion - many thanks to everybody involved in creating UV, WitP and AE (and not to forget good old PacWar) for 10 years of enjoyment of the best games ever made, and to the forum community for many insights, useful info and many hearty laughs!

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

ORIGINAL: JWE





Another wierd one is Marine Generals were very fungible. Roy Geiger commanded 1st MAW (as a 1 star), then the Cactus Air Force (as a 2 star), and then the 1st Phib Corps (as a 3 star). Maybe we should just give all Marine leaders a 90 - 90 - 90 rating, just to be safe (except if there was an Arty rating, we would have to give Pedro a 130 for that) [;)]

There's the game, and then there was real life -- guys like Geiger. Came in as enlisted man, did sea duty, the Caribbean, China, volunteered for aviation, was part of putting together close air support in Haiti, got into officering somehow . . .

They're all riflemen. So, I like your hypothetical rating.

And Geiger goes into the history books as the only Marine (only non- US Army General for that matter) to command a US Army -- the 10th Army, on Okinawa, after Buckner's death.

Default 90-90-90, eh? No bias there. [:)]

In AE you will note a deliberate bias -- virtually across the board, Marine Generals have been given higher aggressiveness ratings than their Army counterparts. And Horse Marine Chesty Puller is the highest-rated US small unit leader in the game.

As an Army guy, that might have given me some heartburn. But as a cavalryman, I have to give props to anyone on a horse . . .

My dad got reserve officer training at Quantico before the war started, so I used to hear all about the difference between Corps and Army doctrine.

And the ground ratings for the squadron leaders are better too. As they should be.

Add a brother in the Corps, and my two brothers that did Army time were outnumbered. [:D]

But, I am happy with my bias. [;)]

BTW, some of the US Army leaders could probably use a better rating, but the only one I know enough about is Gen. Alexander Patch.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
BTW, some of the US Army leaders could probably use a better rating, but the only one I know enough about is Gen. Alexander Patch.

They probably do. But that is a can of worms that this boy don't wanna open.

While we're at it, brother Buck Beach broke my bones on TK and AO specs. Looked at them closer and tweaked some things (minor tonnage and capacity stuff, but more accurate and more rationally related, TK v similar AO). Also added Suamico and Escambia AO classes and pulled the appropriate ships from the Cimmarons. No harm, no foul for anything going on currently, just another teensy nudge. Thanks Buck.

[ed] This is what was sent to Buck. Didn't add Mattaponi class, because it was close enuf in art and specs to an Escambia, that it wasn't worth burning another class slot or two. Also the Chiwawa, even though a T3-S1, was actually smaller than a T2-SE-A; comparable in size and capacity to a Suamico, so didn't burn any extra slots there either. But did tweak and add the rest.

Ok, redid ALL the US Maritime Commission TKs and AOs. Earlier stuff was sloppy and didn’t look at things uniformly. Also included some additional AO classes (indicated by a +) if you want to dial down real deep. Pretty confident with the final numbers. Might want to just rename the Esso class to T2-SE-A2, and the T2-SE-A to T2-SE-A1. We tried to get fancy there and just plain screwed it up.

As always, Cargo is in metric tons of capacity. Tonnage is weird because it only defines what ports and shipyards and ARDs it can go into. So tonnage is either a quasi Navy Std calculation or a volumetric, whichever is larger (tankers are volumetric because they are as long, wider, and deeper, than a cruiser, so it’s more a matter of “fit” than of “weight” per se). Anyway, here they are. Enjoy.

........................Cargo..Ton’g....Spd.....Endur..Fuel…..DwT....Type
AO Cimmaron....14660..10869..18/14..11800..2369..18230..T3-S2-A3-O
AO + Chiwawa...13584...8670..15/12..14500..1759..16543..T3-S2-A1-O
AO Kennebec.....12206...8381..16/13..12700..2168..15574..T2-O
AO + Mattaponi.13143....8716..16/13...7900...1437..15780..T2-A-O
TK T2-SE-A1.....14054....8766..14/11..12600..1468..16722..T2-SE-A1
AO + Suamico...13718....8766..14/11..12600..1468..16186..T2-SE-A1-O
TK T2-SE-A2.....13915....8766..16/13...8300..1468..16583..T2-SE-A2 (Esso)
AO + Escambia..13378....8766..16/13...8300..1468..16046..T2-SE-A2-O

[drw61]

JWE,
Just noticed that the 30th Australian Bde (unit 6041) comes in at 420315 with an experience level of 90 morale 90, is this as intended?
The Brit Lt Arm Rgt 41 (2671) upgrades to 2672 which is blank.

I'm not sure if these are an issue....
The Indian 41 (2 Brit) OOB (2776) has a TOE ID of 2743 instead of 2776
Chinese (Red) (2644) has a TOE ID of 2643 instead of 2644
Chinese AA (2663) has a TOE ID of 2658 instead of 2663

Thanks for all the hard work on this Mod

Added -

Device USA 43 Rifle Squad (1103) and the USA 44 Rifle Squad (1104) have the same stats, is this as intended?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: drw61
JWE,
Just noticed that the 30th Australian Bde (unit 6041) comes in at 420315 with an experience level of 90 morale 90, is this as intended?
The Brit Lt Arm Rgt 41 (2671) upgrades to 2672 which is blank.

I'm not sure if these are an issue....
The Indian 41 (2 Brit) OOB (2776) has a TOE ID of 2743 instead of 2776
Chinese (Red) (2644) has a TOE ID of 2643 instead of 2644
Chinese AA (2663) has a TOE ID of 2658 instead of 2663

Thanks for all the hard work on this Mod

Added -

Device USA 43 Rifle Squad (1103) and the USA 44 Rifle Squad (1104) have the same stats, is this as intended?

Ok, all fixed up. A lot of these are issues left over from stock. Woof!

But, 2671 was supposed to upgrade to a transport unit with just Sup. Instead the 3 Cav Rgts that get 2671, were changed to withdraw instead of upgrading, and upgrade TOE removed from 2671. Aus 30 Bde now comes in with the usual Aus exp and morale. Tweaked US 43 squad to be a skoosh different from US 44 squad. Fixed all the rest of the TOE ID pointers.

Thanks. Ciao.

[stuman]

Ok, all fixed up

...


Please forgive my ignorance but I am curious as to how you guys make such changes in the game. Do you make updates/change etc. as you go along and then periodically update the Babes scenarios on page one of this thread ? Or is there an update procedure that I have missed. Which is a distinct possibility [:)]

And again, thx for taking the time in pulling together the Babes mods. I really enjoy the attention to detail you guys have shown. I am hoisting a beer to your collective honor as I fininsh typing this

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: stuman
Please forgive my ignorance but I am curious as to how you guys make such changes in the game. Do you make updates/change etc. as you go along and then periodically update the Babes scenarios on page one of this thread ?

Yes. Collect them into the master files as they come up. We look carefully to make sure none of them are issues that have a significant impact on game play. There's too many ongoing games for us to do a-tweak-a-week on things that just don't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. So the updates are far and few between, because they are more in the nature of an oil change, tune up, and polishing the chrome. [;)]

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
Any chance to get a "certainly-not-general-gaming-public-but-rather-harcore-realism-fanatic" version - maybe in connection with DaBigBabes?

And from Uncle Don.

We did put in a number of features that should reduce cross loading. One is the "Temporary AP" conversion of Japanese Freighters. Another, far less obvious, is a preference for "normal" loading in the automatic load routines (including the AI and Human auto TF build and auto add-a-ship function).

So, for division size units:

USA Inf, 10929 troop LC, 11411 cargo LC, (incl min supply) 22340, tot LC
Mar Div, 12759 troop LC, 10868 cargo LC, (incl min supply) 23627, tot LC

Takes 12-14 6000 capacity ton xAKs (let’s say an ordinary EC2 Liberty) to transport an Army or Marine Division: 66,000 capacity tons for cross loaded troops (11,000 troops at 6x) and 11,400 capacity tons for weaps, vehs, and supply. Regardless of how they are “actually” distributed across individual ships, you could “rationalize” in terms of fitting 11,000 troops in 14 ships = 800 “men” per ship. And that ain’t bad. And you would need more ships for an Amph TF since they don’t load to 100% (80% iirc).

If ya use xAPs (let’s say a USAT converted EC2 Liberty) ya get 1500 troop cap and 2000 cargo cap, so you will need roughly 8 of these: 12,000 troop capacity for the 11,000 troops, and 16,000 cargo capacity for the 11,400 tons o’ stuff. In both cases, we’re assuming the (x) ships are simply transporting and people (and stuff) are packed in like weevils in a bread bag.

This also works pretty well for a division assault from AP/APAs. You will need 10. The “standard” MarDiv TransRon was about 12 ships in 3 TransDivs, each TransDiv carrying a combat assault Regt (+ attachments). TransDiv was usually 3x AP and 1x AK. So we’re in the ball park for these puppies too.

So cross loading isn’t quite the bad thing it seems to be. Has defects, but Babes make it better – next post.

[JWE]

DaBabes has loads more xAK, xAP type classes and conversion options than stock. There’s the C1, C2, EC2 USAT transport classes; Dutch, and other foreign xAKs that can evolve from native P&C, to WSA trooper, and finally USAT trooper; Straits/KPM/KMSN vessels that can convert to troopers.

An average KPM med xAK has cargo cap of 2900, so can cross-load 480 troops but have NO room for cargo. Same ship converted to a trooper has a troop cap of 1000, and an additional cargo cap of 1200; twice the “men” and still has room for their toys. So rather than inefficiently cross loading, the tools are there for efficient conversion.

Good grist for the hardcore-realism-fanatics. [;)] Ciao.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Takes 12-14 6000 capacity ton xAKs (let’s say an ordinary EC2 Liberty) to transport an Army or Marine Division: 66,000 capacity tons for cross loaded troops (11,000 troops at 6x) and 11,400 capacity tons for weaps, vehs, and supply. Regardless of how they are “actually” distributed across individual ships, you could “rationalize” in terms of fitting 11,000 troops in 14 ships = 800 “men” per ship. And that ain’t bad. And you would need more ships for an Amph TF since they don’t load to 100% (80% iirc).

If ya use xAPs (let’s say a USAT converted EC2 Liberty) ya get 1500 troop cap and 2000 cargo cap, so you will need roughly 8 of these: 12,000 troop capacity for the 11,000 troops, and 16,000 cargo capacity for the 11,400 tons o’ stuff. In both cases, we’re assuming the (x) ships are simply transporting and people (and stuff) are packed in like weevils in a bread bag.

This also works pretty well for a division assault from AP/APAs. You will need 10. The “standard” MarDiv TransRon was about 12 ships in 3 TransDivs, each TransDiv carrying a combat assault Regt (+ attachments). TransDiv was usually 3x AP and 1x AK. So we’re in the ball park for these puppies too.

So cross loading isn’t quite the bad thing it seems to be. Has defects, but Babes make it better – next post.

And the difference in assault unload rates makes a huge difference. Forget about how many xAK/xAP you can use to carry that unit, because the unload rates when not at a friendly base are:

250 points per day for xAK/xAP

600 points per day for AK/AP

3,000 points per day for AKA/APA

I've also found the loading routines a little squirrelly. Take a division and spread it across a huge number of xAP and xAK so it will unload fast and you will often find that at least one ship was loaded deep and will take several turns to unload. That ship will have the parent fragment, meaning that the 95% of your division on the beach will be commanded by a random colonel. Just another incentive to use the right ships for the job.
[8D]

[JWE]

response to Karl's pm asking "what do you mean xAK is same as xAP".

They are. They are treated the same way by the game code *. The KPM med xAK, mentioned above, has cargo cap of 2900 and is a Type=82 xAK. The trooper conversion has a troop cap of 1000, and an additional cargo cap of 1200, and is Type=80 xAP.

But one could have a KPM trooper with a troop cap of 1000, and a cargo cap of 1200, and call it a Type 82=xAK, and have it work identically to the xAP version. The only important things are the values in the Troop capacity, Cargo capacity, and Liquid capacity fields.

xAP is just a way of naming a class that can carry troops, so that you are able to find them in the ship list. Can you imagine the horror if everything was an xAK and one had to scroll thru the whole list to find one that could schlepp troops? Woof! So it was decided to give the utter-grognard-hardcore-realism-fanatics a break. Hope ya'll don't mind. [;)]

* Uncle Don may have put a Type check into the "Get One More Ship" TF formation routine so that it looks for a Type=80 if there's lots of troops in the unit to be loaded, or a Type=82 if there's lots of artillery but, if so, that's about it for code differences between xAK and xAP.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
And the difference in assault unload rates makes a huge difference. Forget about how many xAK/xAP you can use to carry that unit, because the unload rates when not at a friendly base are:

250 points per day for xAK/xAP

600 points per day for AK/AP

3,000 points per day for AKA/APA

I've also found the loading routines a little squirrelly. Take a division and spread it across a huge number of xAP and xAK so it will unload fast and you will often find that at least one ship was loaded deep and will take several turns to unload. That ship will have the parent fragment, meaning that the 95% of your division on the beach will be commanded by a random colonel. Just another incentive to use the right ships for the job.
[8D]

Just like Don, I too had digestive tract problems with some stuff. And that one was a biggie.

The Navalized AK/APs were not substantially different from the subsequent AKA/APAs. Indeed, many were simply redesignated without receiving even a coat of paint. The big difference was in the spec number of Wellins, and the craft loadout; AK/APs had LCPLs, AKA/APAs had LCVPs. Both had LCMs and the earlier AKs also had Port Lighter Ds that were a direct precurser. Both number and lift capacity were darn near the same (admittedly, AK/APs were specified with min 20 ton crane/kingposts, while AKA/APAs were specified with 30 tonners).

Was it me, I would have put xAK/xAP at 200 points, AK/AP at 1500 points, and AKA/APA at 2500 points. But such is life.

Yes, the load routine allows divisions to spread across a huge number of ships. It's an artifact of the game's flexibility and represents a a way bigger than 3 sigma possibility. Couldn't make a rational cut-off that would work across nationalities in time for release, so just let it be. All I can say is an opponent who wants to play this way should be relegated to your septic tank.

In the great, grand, scheme of things, using the right ships for the right jobs will put you in the 2 or 3 sigma ball park as to historical practice, and make the game play out in a very realistic fashion. [8D]

[witpqs]

Thanks for the additional info - didn't know that AK/AP and AKA/APA were so close IRL.

Google doesn't know what is a "Wellin" and, sadly, neither do I.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Thanks for the additional info - didn't know that AK/AP and AKA/APA were so close IRL.

Google doesn't know what is a "Wellin" and, sadly, neither do I.

Made by Wellin Davit Co. A yank'em-crank'em-landing craft deployment machine gun. Load 'em-drop 'em, load 'em-drop 'em; fast as the boys can scramble on board. It was a revolver and had "significant" weight capacity.

[witpqs]

No time/danger climbing nets - fantastic!

Thanks.

[oldman45]

I can't say how many times I saw those in pictures with no explanation and couldn't figure out what they were. Thanks

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Thanks for the additional info - didn't know that AK/AP and AKA/APA were so close IRL.

Google doesn't know what is a "Wellin" and, sadly, neither do I.

Made by Wellin Davit Co. A yank'em-crank'em-landing craft deployment machine gun. Load 'em-drop 'em, load 'em-drop 'em; fast as the boys can scramble on board. It was a revolver and had "significant" weight capacity.

I think a lot of readers in the main forum would like to see this pic. I'd never heard of a Wellin.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I think a lot of readers in the main forum would like to see this pic. I'd never heard of a Wellin.

Help yourself Moose. No worries.

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Thanks for the additional info - didn't know that AK/AP and AKA/APA were so close IRL.

Oh yeah. Many APs just became APAs under the new classification system. This is Leonard Wood (as AP-25) in Sept ’42, reclassified as APA-12 in Feb ’43. Dickman in the background. Same with the Bell, Liggett, Legion, Zeilin, that whole bunch.

Even in Sept, they already had their Welins, and radar, and full boogie gun suite, oh my! Each had 4 Welin triples per side, so 24x LCPL/LCPR/LCVP could put an assault Bn of 850 troops in the water in 37 minutes. Looks like Dickman is doing load exercises. Her boats are at the rail ready for filling. Also kept the deck space clear for 6 LCMs (sometimes including 6 more LCVPs nested in the LCMs). And this was while they were still called APs.

The bottom pic is a plan view of APA-44. 28x LCPL/LCPR/LCVP, and up to 6x LCMs. The plan shows 3 LCPL/LCPR/LCVP mounted fore-and-aft over hold #2, but these were often replaced by 2 LCMs mounted athwart ships. The LCMs all have LCPL/LCPR/LCVP nestled inside. So not much different at all from the Leonard Wood. LCMs were good for Arty batteries and lt tank platoons, so ships got what they needed, depending on what they were loaded with.

AK and AKA was the same deal, except they would have more heavy-lift LCM at the expense of LCP.