DaBabes Errata

[witpqs]

I looked for an old errata thread rather than start a new one, but it must be way down in the old pages.

I have in two PBMs run into a problem with one small set of units in the DEI, and using a CSV dump of the scenario files I think I found the error.

This is scenario 28-C (using extended map which I don't think matters to this error).

The 2/2nd Avn Sup Afd and the 3/2nd Avn Sup Afd are two of the small air support units the Dutch have. Many such units can re-build into one larger unit, and these two can as well. But when you do re-build them, strange things happen. In one game they combined (using the re-build button) into 1/2nd Avn Sup Afd, which could then re-build into the 1/2nd Avn Sup Afd again, ad infinitum! In the other game the two units simply disappeared when trying to re-build them into the larger unit.

Look at the graphic below. The first is a screen shot from before attempting to combine (re-build) them. The names of the units implies that the large unit (after re-build) should be named "2nd Avn Sup Afd", and that there should be another small unit named "1/2nd Avn Sup Afd" but one is not present at game start (nor arrives later), so perhaps there is a typographical error in the scenario file? I dumped the scenario files (witploadAE) to CSV files and looked. Sure enough (see the second screen shot in the graphic below), there are definitions for three small units (not two), and a large unit with the expected name. Also, the three small units point to the first small unit, instead of pointing to the large unit.

I changed the three units pointing to "5911" to point to "5910" instead, then imported the CSVs back into scenario files and tested the fix. All three small units appeared at game start (instead of only two), and when they got to the same location they combined (re-build) normally.

Hopefully this explanation is clear. [:D]

[LargeSlowTarget]

There are two "43rd Construction Co" units in the Japanese OOB - locations 3931 and 4004.

This gives the Japanese ahistorical engineering capacities! [:D]

[witpqs]

Running Scenario 28C v10.

LCU # 6046, the 2nd Aus Cav Bde changes names on 1942-06-01 to 3rd Army Tank. However it is still an infantry unit, has no tanks, and there is no TOE change (ever) scheduled for the unit.

Has no effect on how the unit behaves so can be ignored for ongoing games. Maybe the new name will even frighten your opponent? [:D]

[JWE]

Yep, makes sense and you did the right thing. I'll fix up those things and make sure LST doesn't have an ahistorical Japanese engineering capability on the next update [;)] I'll just get rid of the rename thing, too.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yep, makes sense and you did the right thing. I'll fix up those things and make sure LST doesn't have an ahistorical Japanese engineering capability on the next update [;)] I'll just get rid of the rename thing, too.

Been holding my breath (and turning from blue to black) awaiting your masterpiece update.

Buck

[Puhis]

I'm playing BabesLite A (scenario 26) as Japan, and I noticed that Chinese HMG squads upgrades to Chinese infantry squad. I think this is an error?

[CyrusSpitama]

I too noticed this issue with Chinese HMG squads upgrading to crappy base INF squads using RS v4.6 without using DaBabes of any version.

I also saw certain squads have no name but, take up a slot on the TOE for select units. I read this was a balance issue for Dababes but, am I just bugged as I am using only RA 4.6 and no DaBabes?

[US87891]

ORIGINAL: CyrusSpitama

I too noticed this issue with Chinese HMG squads upgrading to crappy base INF squads using RS v4.6 without using DaBabes of any version.

I also saw certain squads have no name but, take up a slot on the TOE for select units. I read this was a balance issue for Dababes but, am I just bugged as I am using only RA 4.6 and no DaBabes?

It is not a balance issue for anything. It is a typo that shows up in every scenario everywhere, stock or babes or RA. Just change the silly thing so it upgrades to itself at 1418 instead of the Inf squad at 1417.

Matt

[US87891]

New stuff. Working with the people at combinedfleet.com on fuel burn rates and more realistic endurance figures. Will change a lot of endurance values. Make refueling of CVs and BBs more important, and make transport ships use more gas to get to where they are going.

MIT, Cambridge, MA, Pratt School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Form-2, SMOE-207;
JSUSIM, v2.00, 2007;
COMM-A, S-7i, 2008;

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: US87891

New stuff. Working with the people at combinedfleet.com on fuel burn rates and more realistic endurance figures. Will change a lot of endurance values. Make refueling of CVs and BBs more important, and make transport ships use more gas to get to where they are going.

MIT, Cambridge, MA, Pratt School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Form-2, SMOE-207;
JSUSIM, v2.00, 2007;
COMM-A, S-7i, 2008;

After that will you work on creating AVGas for our planes, they just don't run right on carrots and potatoes?[;)]

OK so much for dreaming.

Buck

[US87891]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
After that will you work on creating AVGas for our planes, they just don't run right on carrots and potatoes?[;)]

OK so much for dreaming.

Buck

Wish we could. Gonna have to think of green gas from rutabagas.[8D]

The last email I got, after J was talking to the usual historical suspects. I don't know how to post up the graphs, but I assume people like JuanG will know what's going on;

Ok, the burn/HP/Hr is in the same ballpark for design ‘cruising’ speeds for most displacement vessels. For merchant vessels, the design ‘cruising’ speed was determined for shaft revolutions at approximately 87-93% of power settings. For warships, the design ‘cruising’ speed was determined at the cusp of the second derivative of the burn/HP/Hr curve, derived from design data. The burn rate, after the cusp still follows the cube law, with an adjustment function depending on the Hp/Dspl ratio and the root-speed equations.

The different colors in the graphs are calibrated to the major ship coefficients. I’m sure you know that Lwl/Bwl has a direct first order effect on resistance (drag) and Draft/Bwl has an inverse first order effect on waterplane resistance. So holding all other things equal, I’m seeing fuel burn rates, in terms of Lbs/HP/Hr that are totally, internally, self-consistent. Damn, I love it when the math comes together.

As you can see, everything fits on the curve. So I’ll be tweaking things to get them righteous. I’ll keep the Fuel Cap where it is and only tweak endurance so it updates without issues. I think it represents a 15% increased fuel use across the various ships. Let me know wha happens. Btw, Janet was cutting her grass, at 2:00pm, in the middle of the Alabama heat wave, so for a joke I tell her I’ll give her $20 to cut mine. She’s a school teacher so she knows all the local bite me things and prolly said most of them. But come Tuesday, Graham is knocking on the door lookin for some gas money, How could I resist? Did a good job.

[US87891]

So what happens with those switches and fields in the editor that don't seem to do very much?
For Japan.
Production is “On”
Can Build is “Yes”
When a unit arrives the production system produces the unit’s TO&E of devices, decrementing the manpower/armament/vehicle pools as necessary. If the unit arrives with fewer devices than the TO&E calls for, the remainder of devices is put into the pools, if the device has build set to “Yes”. Replacements/reinforcements are taken from the pools and afterwards built to order.
Can Build is “No”
When a unit arrives the production system produces the unit’s NUM of devices, decrementing the manpower/armament/vehicle pools as necessary. If the unit arrives with fewer devices than the TO&E calls for, there is no remainder of devices to go into the pools, if the device has build set to “No”, and there will be no replacements/reinforcements for that device.

So there’s opportunity to do some playing around. Monster build rates for “Support” devices can go away. Allies get them in regularly scheduled ‘fake’ LCU intros that disband to pools, while Japan has to use resources (manpower/armament/vehicle points) to get them.

We have several games into 43/44 and can get a handle on what’s flooding the pools and cut it to the bone. We got 6 savegames across 6 months starting from 2/42 that we are using to tweak the build rates (pools). Some exciting things happening.[;)]

[Gridley380]

A thought I had because I'm annoyed about obsolete squads in my pools:

Might a couple of 'training camp' units be created (static units), say one every six months or so, that has a large TO&E strength but very low present strength of each old squad type? The player would set these to 'reinforcements on' but 'upgrade off' to first suck old squads from the pools, then the player would turn 'upgrade on', have the squads upgrade, and then disband the unit to dump the squads back into the pools?

Or am I the only one having the problem of pools full of obsolete Aussie squads because I'm bad at land combat unit management?