Tuning Out, Now

[Don Bowen]

It is becoming increasingly difficult to coordinate mods with the diverse set of AI scripts and artwork sets out there. I'm both surprised and grateful that John and his guys have carried on this long. It may soon be necessary to require separate installations for some of the more comprehensive mods due to all the ship, aircraft, and map artwork changes. Not to mention the various pwhexe/pwzone/pwlink files.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


It is becoming increasingly difficult to coordinate mods with the diverse set of AI scripts and artwork sets out there. I'm both surprised and grateful that John and his guys have carried on this long. It may soon be necessary to require separate installations for some of the more comprehensive mods due to all the ship, aircraft, and map artwork changes. Not to mention the various pwhexe/pwzone/pwlink files.

I already use different installations for that and for each PBM. It greatly simplifies things. Thankfully, AE allows for that once it is properly installed on the PC.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Want to add my support for what has been posted by others above. Big fan of DBB-C here and always considered the DBB scenarios (the real, not the light) as Non-AI games. I'm playing neither AI nor PBEM but H2H against myself (and doing stupid things the AI would never do) - probably not the only one doing this. And as many others I'm using DBB as base for a personal mod and would be sad to see no further improvements to the DBB to borrow and fit into.

[btd64]

Symon, I think its clear. You and your team have a great big fan base. A lot of people enjoy DBB's. Someday I hope to have some time to do what you and your team do so well. I'm on my first PBEM with JuanG and I don't know why I waited so long. PBEM is the future of WITPAE. It needs to keep growing or it may end up in the discount rack.[:(] We ALL love you and your team and there work. Please don't stop........GP

[Symon]

Thanks all for your support.

Where we have gone with our scenarios is far outside the scope of the nominal game. Much of what we do cannot be recognized by the AI scripts. Our current data solutions cannot be ported into the nominal commercial game system. They hit the AI wall, and bounced.

We will continue to host DBB and BabesLite scenarios, but won’t do much more with them. What we will do is port over some of the most interesting “operational problem” scenarios that the Texas and California groups have come up with. These are all ‘smaller map’, ‘shorter time’ scenarios and dig much deeper into the TOEs and OOBs of the period of interest. They have very extensive and particular operational imperatives and victory conditions. They are designed exclusively for H2H or PBEM play.

We have tweaked the aeixxx.dat file so that a player can use the internal AI engine to support their moves for a limited period of time. There are no vestigial scripts that will jerk the game around. It’s as clean as clean can get.

Our first offering will be Operation SF. A balanced scenario in the June to November, 1942 time frame. Both naval and land assets will have ‘advantage’ bounces. There will be no gamey nonsense. Coming to our website soon.

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: Symon

Thanks all for your support.

Where we have gone with our scenarios is far outside the scope of the nominal game. Much of what we do cannot be recognized by the AI scripts. Our current data solutions cannot be ported into the nominal commercial game system. They hit the AI wall, and bounced.

We will continue to host DBB and BabesLite scenarios, but won’t do much more with them. What we will do is port over some of the most interesting “operational problem” scenarios that the Texas and California groups have come up with. These are all ‘smaller map’, ‘shorter time’ scenarios and dig much deeper into the TOEs and OOBs of the period of interest. They have very extensive and particular operational imperatives and victory conditions. They are designed exclusively for H2H or PBEM play.

We have tweaked the aeixxx.dat file so that a player can use the internal AI engine to support their moves for a limited period of time. There are no vestigial scripts that will jerk the game around. It’s as clean as clean can get.

Our first offering will be Operation SF. A balanced scenario in the June to November, 1942 time frame. Both naval and land assets will have ‘advantage’ bounces. There will be no gamey nonsense. Coming to our website soon.

Thank You Symon, Those scenarios sound fun. But pushing the limits of historical fact is keeping the game interesting.[8D] WE SALUTE YOU.[&o][&o][&o]

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Concur with Michael. We, in the Treaty as well as hybrid RA--Treaty Mod, EXPECT those bad-a**ed Allied OOB changes and plan to implement them into the new Mods!

Anything that we find that can be reasonably ported into the regular game, I will do so. And I'll let you know ahead of time, whenever that comes to pass.

Think the general Babes system is pretty stable right now. I don't expect any radical changes to be made. I'll continue to support BigBabes and BabesLite, but the places our players are going are a far departure from the nominal game paradigm. Our current tweaks, tricks, TOEs, OOBs, do not fit within the system, and cannot be made to do so, and therefore can't be ported back in.

So our new stuff will have to be offered on a different plate.

Some people are discouraged by the time requirement and the historical end-game conclusion of a GC game. So why not make a bunch of smaller map, shorter time, scenarios that people can actually play and get something out of in a reasonable period of time. Since it is shorter, one can make OOBs of Bn/Regt size to conform to the actual combat deployment of units in the theater. We think it is a better way to present the operational imperitives of both participants. Either side can win in any given scenario. It has worked for us for several years, maybe it will work for some AE forumites.

Ciao. John

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: General Patton
Thank You Symon, Those scenarios sound fun. But pushing the limits of historical fact is keeping the game interesting.[8D] WE SALUTE YOU.[&o][&o][&o]

You are welcome. Except we do not push the limits of historical fact. Our scenarios are as close to historical fact as we can make them. We use the actual text of the appropriate Army-Navy Central Agreements as the basis for IJ operations, and the official text of operational communications from King to Nimitz, and from Nimitz to his Fleet Admirals as the basis for USN operations. Nothing is in our scenarios that is not supported by a contemporary, primary source document.

There were quite a few of those, and plans came and went, so there is some room to maneuver. But you will never see anything that is not strictly supported by historical fact.[8D]

Ciao. John

[Skyros]

Keep it coming, it keeps the game fresh for all of us.

ORIGINAL: Symon



Anything that we find that can be reasonably ported into the regular game, I will do so. And I'll let you know ahead of time, whenever that comes to pass.

Think the general Babes system is pretty stable right now. I don't expect any radical changes to be made. I'll continue to support BigBabes and BabesLite, but the places our players are going are a far departure from the nominal game paradigm. Our current tweaks, tricks, TOEs, OOBs, do not fit within the system, and cannot be made to do so, and therefore can't be ported back in.

So our new stuff will have to be offered on a different plate.

Some people are discouraged by the time requirement and the historical end-game conclusion of a GC game. So why not make a bunch of smaller map, shorter time, scenarios that people can actually play and get something out of in a reasonable period of time. Since it is shorter, one can make OOBs of Bn/Regt size to conform to the actual combat deployment of units in the theater. We think it is a better way to present the operational imperitives of both participants. Either side can win in any given scenario. It has worked for us for several years, maybe it will work for some AE forumites.

Ciao. John

[Sardaukar]

We'll need you guys to refine the data. [8D]

Let the AI be a worry of others, maybe Andy Mac will continue with efforts. That's my take on issue.

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Symon

Some people are discouraged by the time requirement and the historical end-game conclusion of a GC game. So why not make a bunch of smaller map, shorter time, scenarios that people can actually play and get something out of in a reasonable period of time. Since it is shorter, one can make OOBs of Bn/Regt size to conform to the actual combat deployment of units in the theater. We think it is a better way to present the operational imperitives of both participants. Either side can win in any given scenario. It has worked for us for several years, maybe it will work for some AE forumites.

+1

AI or no, either way, works for me.

[kkoovvoo]

ORIGINAL: Symon

Some people are discouraged by the time requirement and the historical end-game conclusion of a GC game. So why not make a bunch of smaller map, shorter time, scenarios that people can actually play and get something out of in a reasonable period of time. Since it is shorter, one can make OOBs of Bn/Regt size to conform to the actual combat deployment of units in the theater. We think it is a better way to present the operational imperitives of both participants. Either side can win in any given scenario. It has worked for us for several years, maybe it will work for some AE forumites.

Cannot agree more. I play PBEM only small scen and its often difficult to finish those. So i am certainly not going to start PBEM GC to read after 100 turns that my opponent lost interest (and the same may happen to me to be honest).

[Symon]

Smaller map and shorter time scenarios allow for many interesting permutations that take advantage of some of the game’s more obscure internal features. They are lots of fun and, we believe, can be exceptionally difficult to successfully conclude (for either side) according to a side’s operational orders and the scenario victory conditions.

Since there is no need to list thousands of LCUs, there is plenty of open slot space to make the scenario OOBs as grainy, specific, and creative as appropriate for each scenario. There are no divisions; nothing to break-down and recombine. The largest unit is the Regiment/Brigade. The “division” is an HQ and is divided up into its component Infantry Regiments, Recce Troops/Sqdns/Bns, Artillery Bns, and (new) Train/Service/QM Bns.

Breaking things up like this cannot be handled by the AI scripts. Nor can our LCU ‘Type’ changes conform to certain of the requirements of the AI code embedded in the game executable. Our paradigm would mean a total change in the AI philosophy and a complete redo of every script. That is neither possible nor desirable. Since our game implementation concepts have departed so far from the original game philosophy, there is no possibility of porting our new stuff into the normal Babes GC system.

If we find data issues, or desirable data tweaks, we will, of course, back-fill them to the Babes GC scenarios. But our main focus is on developing highly textured scenarios for ourselves and those real grognards out there.

Will start a new thread that details some of the twists, turns, changes, and specifics of the “short” paradigm.

Ciao. JWE

[Mac Linehan]

ORIGINAL: Symon

Smaller map and shorter time scenarios allow for many interesting permutations that take advantage of some of the game’s more obscure internal features. They are lots of fun and, we believe, can be exceptionally difficult to successfully conclude (for either side) according to a side’s operational orders and the scenario victory conditions.

Since there is no need to list thousands of LCUs, there is plenty of open slot space to make the scenario OOBs as grainy, specific, and creative as appropriate for each scenario. There are no divisions; nothing to break-down and recombine. The largest unit is the Regiment/Brigade. The “division” is an HQ and is divided up into its component Infantry Regiments, Recce Troops/Sqdns/Bns, Artillery Bns, and (new) Train/Service/QM Bns.

Breaking things up like this cannot be handled by the AI scripts. Nor can our LCU ‘Type’ changes conform to certain of the requirements of the AI code embedded in the game executable. Our paradigm would mean a total change in the AI philosophy and a complete redo of every script. That is neither possible nor desirable. Since our game implementation concepts have departed so far from the original game philosophy, there is no possibility of porting our new stuff into the normal Babes GC system.

If we find data issues, or desirable data tweaks, we will, of course, back-fill them to the Babes GC scenarios. But our main focus is on developing highly textured scenarios for ourselves and those real grognards out there.

Will start a new thread that details some of the twists, turns, changes, and specifics of the “short” paradigm.

Ciao. JWE

To the other posters in this thread - a "very eloquent and well said response" to John's post.

John -

I have carefully read (and reread!) this thread and now have a much clearer understanding and appreciation of the challenges that the Team faces when implementing Babes concepts into the grand campaign verses the small map, non AI scenarios.

I, as with many others on this forum, love the concepts and changes that DBB has brought to AE, making the game more challenging and with a much stronger feel for historical realism.

It does not bother me at all to play H2H solitaire - I enjoy every minute of game time. The Philippines and DEI small map scenarios were a delight to play - at a very fast pace. The DBB 28C has been a staple since I first became aware of Babes.

Thank You for sharing your concerns; rest assured that the Babes mods - weather small map or grand campaign will never loose their appeal, luster or be marginalized in any way. There have been many bumps on the road since the first Babes release; it is my perception (and absolute faith and trust) that the Team has and will continue to march and overcome them all - and it only gets better.

We are very grateful for you untiring support on our behalf; and are well aware of the time and effort required for each release or upgrade. Thank You, Sir.

Andy -

While I truly enjoy playing H2H solitaire, it was your magnificent (wicked!) scripts, variations and hard work that brought forth the Iron man mods in all their variations - and allowed me to play the Big Babes A Ironman Nasty Nasty. I always had a burn to play the campaign game (preferably a Babes variant) against the AI - as my H2H solitaire (while darned enjoyable) is, of course, slow moving. Now we are blessed to have it all, grand campaigns or historically accurate, detailed small map scenarios.

Andy, it is very important to me that all your AI scripts and mods are recognized for the outstanding, quality work that they are.

Gents, AI or no AI is like comparing apples and oranges; that is why I have multiple installations of AE on my computer. How fortunate we are to have John, Andy, Michael, Don and many others (who are no less important) who continue supporting and moving the original AE far, far beyond it's original concepts, down several different paths.

After all these years, I still look forward to checking the forums on Friday night - anticipating yet another awesome concept to be added to this outstanding game.

Mac