Updated Scen 1 and 2

[Yaab]

Scen001

Something that has bothered me for a long time

Such an important USN base like Cebu (base ID 659) starts with no fuel, yet a backwater like Boac (base id 651) starts with over 1000 fuel. I have a hard time believing that USN stuffed Cebu with naval support and depth charges, but forgot to leave any fuel. Andy, can you put a small dump of fuel (200-500) in Cebu and reduce Boac fuel stocks? Since the scenario does not have any small tankers and I play with "no fuel transported by xAK ships" house rule, I have to risk precious TKs at the time tankers are actually evaced south. Small fuel dump in Cebu can top up PTs and other Allied small craft.

[Andy Mac]

next time I do an update I will take a look for now give yourself a pass and send one xAk with fuel !!!

I guarantee the AI wont complain about breaking HR's !!

[Kull]

Hi Andy - Here are some data base problems. Following a limited search, I think they apply to all standard and DaBabes scenarios:

Major problems:

1) Ship Class ID-4: King George V (BB) - There are 5 database line items, and all upgrade correctly except #4, which upgrades to itself (thus breaking the link to ID-5)

2) Ship Class ID-35: Hawkins (CA) - There are 3 database line items, and all upgrade correctly except #35, which upgrades to itself (thus breaking the link to ID-36)

3) Ship Class ID-358: North Carolina (BB) - There are 13 database line items, and most upgrade correctly. The first problem is #358, which upgrades to itself (thus breaking the link to ID-359)

4) Ship Class ID-359: North Carolina (BB) - There are 13 database line items, and most upgrade correctly. The second problem is #359, which upgrades to itself (thus breaking the link to ID-360)

5) Ship Class ID-376: Massachusetts (BB) - There are 3 database line items, but the upgrade date for ID-376 is the same as ID-375 (both are set to upgrade on 5/44). The only difference between the two is that ID-376 adds Wpn1644 (SR AS Radar). Looking through the database, I see that BB Indiana (ID-372) has an identical upgrade, but it takes place on 4/45. Accordingly, I recommend you shift the upgrade date for ID-376 to 4/45.

6) Air Group ID 1871: Brit No.810 Sqn FAA - Broken upgrade. The first upgrade is to Swordfish I (the starting airframe) which doubles the upgrade and thus breaks the path. Shift the 1st upgrade (00) to Albacore I and the 2nd upgrade (01) to Barracuda II (which should be doubled to conclude the upgrade path)

7) Air Group ID 3594: US 3rd BG/13 BS - Incorrect upgrade. Upgrades from Banshee to the Dutch B-25C (#157). It should upgrade to the US B-25C (#295)


Minor stuff:

1) Ship Class ID-266: Thronycroft HDML (HDML) - Typo. The manufacturer's name s/b spelled "Thornycroft"

2) Ship Class ID-788: Alder ACM (ACM) - Duplicate ship name. There are 12 ships in this class and "Sumac" arrives twice (ship IDs 9967 and 9970). I did some research, and the second ship should be named "Lupine"

3) Ship ID ID-353: Typo. The ship name "Etofuro" should be spelled the same as the ship class name, "Etorufo"

4) Ship ID ID-894: Typo. The ship name "Hayamoto" is incorrect. It s/b spelled "Hayatomo"

Lastly, in 2017 there was a post from cardas in which he identified a vast number of database issues involving "weapon facing". The topic was DaBabes, but from what I can see, most of the ships are also present in the standard scenarios, and most of those still have these issues (I confirmed that by checking a few of them in your new Scen 1 v5).

[Kull]

I'll preface this next bit by noting that my comments are based on a long-running game involving Scenario 102, the Ironman tier 1 that used the new bases and the first cut of the new AI. So perhaps some of these comments may no longer apply. I would also caution anyone reading this however, that there are spoilers, so you are warned.


1) Perhaps the biggest single monkey wrench the Japanese AI could throw at the human player would be a VERY early invasion of Sinkawang. In combination with a large base support element and torpedo-bearing aircraft with long-legged (Zero) escorts. At one stroke this would shut-off the Allied ability to brave sir robin units out of Singapore (or, conversely, to heavily reinforce it) and would also slam the door shut on fuel exports out of Palembang or any direct troop landings there. Right now it's just too easy for the Allied player to do anything they want in either location.

2) The new bases and AI in Burma are excellent, but there's one noticeable issue. When the Japanese capture Shwebo, the next base on the AI target list is Katha, but the problem is that it's 3 hexes away and in between are the retreated British units sitting to the NE in 60,44. Unfortunately, the AI doesn't "see" them as something to be attacked, but rather an obstacle to move around. So it sends forces across the river into 60,45 (Jungle Rough) then 61,44 (Jungle) and finally performs an across river shock attack into Katha (Jungle). During which time the Allies can quickly use the (ignored by the Japanese AI) road network to move those retreated forces into Katha and have ample time to recover and crush the attacking Japanese (who are likely to arrive and attack separately). I understand how the AI works and this sort of thing can happen anywhere that you are unable to string dot bases together, but the impact is particularly egregious when the AI takes a roundabout path which involves crossing rivers and traipsing through horrible movement allowance terrain. Anyway, a couple more dot bases would solve the problem!

3) The new AI does a nice job of snapping up all the SRA islands which used to sit untouched, but there's one exception. The band of islands which stretches north and west from Borneo to Malaya (Groot Natoena, et al). There's no strategic implication that I've seen, but they are too far for the rowboat corps, and it would clean things up.

4) Not a big deal, but the base at 59,92 in Borneo (Sintang) is the only non-coastal base on the whole large island, and simple confuses the AI. It has no idea what to do with that thing. Sure you could probably add some scripts to go after it, but to me it's just a useless dot base of no benefit to either side. Put it to better use somewhere else.

[Yaab]

Scen001v5, Allies


A couple of new bases in Burma start with fort level 6. Is this intentional?

Listed below, from Mount Victoria to Fort Hertz.

[Andy Mac]

Nope that's an error I will fix

Fortunately apart from Tenchung and possibly Fort Herz not an issue really as no one will fight in those locations before the Japanese can take them

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Kull

Major problems:

1) Ship Class ID-4: King George V (BB) - There are 5 database line items, and all upgrade correctly except #4, which upgrades to itself (thus breaking the link to ID-5)

Not sure it is an error. #4 and #5 have same upgrade date 2/44. Note they have different displacements. POW can upgrade from #1 through #4, KGV arrives as #4, but Howe, Anson and Duke of York arrive as #5. Guess these are two sub-groups of the KGV class.

2) Ship Class ID-35: Hawkins (CA) - There are 3 database line items, and all upgrade correctly except #35, which upgrades to itself (thus breaking the link to ID-36)

Good find!

3) Ship Class ID-358: North Carolina (BB) - There are 13 database line items, and most upgrade correctly. The first problem is #358, which upgrades to itself (thus breaking the link to ID-359)

4) Ship Class ID-359: North Carolina (BB) - There are 13 database line items, and most upgrade correctly. The second problem is #359, which upgrades to itself (thus breaking the link to ID-360)

Not sure it is an error, looks more like additions for "what-if" scenarios or "leftovers" from abandoned scenario design "musings". #347 - #349 of the North Carolina class aren't even used, NC and Washington enter as #350. #356 named Washington and not NC is not used either, seems to be a variant "musing" which finally did not made it into the scenario. I think that the line is supposed to end at #358. #359 actually has less AA than #358 and #359 and #360 have no upgrade delay, unlike the other upgrades - looks to me that they are finally not supposed to be used.

5) Ship Class ID-376: Massachusetts (BB) - There are 3 database line items, but the upgrade date for ID-376 is the same as ID-375 (both are set to upgrade on 5/44). The only difference between the two is that ID-376 adds Wpn1644 (SR AS Radar). Looking through the database, I see that BB Indiana (ID-372) has an identical upgrade, but it takes place on 4/45. Accordingly, I recommend you shift the upgrade date for ID-376 to 4/45.

Good find!

6) Air Group ID 1871: Brit No.810 Sqn FAA - Broken upgrade. The first upgrade is to Swordfish I (the starting airframe) which doubles the upgrade and thus breaks the path. Shift the 1st upgrade (00) to Albacore I and the 2nd upgrade (01) to Barracuda II (which should be doubled to conclude the upgrade path)

Good find!

7) Air Group ID 3594: US 3rd BG/13 BS - Incorrect upgrade. Upgrades from Banshee to the Dutch B-25C (#157). It should upgrade to the US B-25C (#295)

No, it is actually WAD - quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Bomb ... rld_War_II :

When the unit arrived in Australia in January 1942, they were still without airplanes. While waiting for aircraft, the Reapers learned there were 24 brand new North American B-25 Mitchells sitting on the ramp in nearby Melbourne, but the planes were earmarked for the Dutch. Soon after, 24 Reaper pilots arrived in Melbourne, presented a confused Officer of the Day with an authorization letter, and nonchalantly flew away with the airplanes before anyone realized the mistake.

Also see http://warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/1 ... omber.html for a more credible source than Wikipedia.

One has to admire the level of detail the designers have put into the game!

[Kull]

Hi LST - Thanks for the "course corrections", and I agree with all three of them. However, while looking a bit closer at the BB upgrade paths, I noticed an oddity involving Device 1644 (SR AS Radar). According to NavWeaps (who I find to be pretty reliable), it was a "small sized but longish antenna shaped as an inverted V, installed in older battleships, some arrangements with two antennas were known."

NavWeaps has listings of radar sets by BB, including when they were added, and while it shows that most of the pre-war BBs gained the SR radar system in 1942, none of those BBs ever get it in AE. Paradoxically, in AE we see it installed only on some of the newer BBs, and even then, only in 1945.

Accordingly, I suspect that SR AS Radar is actually a substitute for the late war SP Radar (not included in the AE device list), which was installed on several of the newer BBs as an alternate radar system. Which brings us to ship ID 360, the final upgrade for the North Carolina BB class, which included more AA and the SR Radar. In real life, BB NC never received the SP Radar but BB Washington did, so like you, I suspect that the devs originally intended to have a dual upgrade path for NC and Washington, but it was never implemented.

[Pentakomo]

Any luck with device 1467 for japan in scenario 2?

[Kull]

Hi Andy - As good as the AI may be (and you are working wonders with it), there is a fundamental problem specific to the Japanese AI. Specifically, while it is possible to open an AI-opponent game in "head-to-head" mode, thereby giving the human player the ability to make adjustments to the AI's force dispositions for a turn or more, it soon becomes impossible to do this for the Japanese AI, because of the Manchukuo Garrison requirements:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: stretch

Be warned that the Japanese AI can allow the garrison requirements to fall without risk of the Soviets becoming active. Once that loads up as human, they activate. Thus in my current game vs the AI I can't do anything as the AI to help it out. I can only stop, look, and then reload the old save with the Soviets inactive and continue.

That's true. Since I almost always play as IJ, I never run into this issue. But if you are playing as the allies, it is a real issue that will develop by mid-'42 and then continue on … meaning the IJ AI in most games can't be helped and so the game doesn't tend to be as challenging as you can't help the AI past some bottlenecks. In these cases you will find that you have to cede the base in question (let the AI win), or choose to continue beating the AI until it no longer has capability to attack and then the game goes quite easily and monotonously to its end.

For those who may be unsure how the AI determines which units count against the Garrison, here's a helpful description from Alfred:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

A.  Manchukuo Garrison

1.  The threshold is 8,000 available Japanese Assault Value ("AV").  Since Patch #6 (Change #116), the relevant area is the Manchukuo hex ownership (= the nationality code).  It includes both bases and non base hexes within the relevant area.  Previously it was the old North West Zone left over from classical WITP. 

2.  Be above the threshold, even by only 1 AV, and there is no die roll check.

3.  Be below the threshold, even by only 1 AV, and a die roll check is made to see if the Soviets are activated.  This check is made every turn the garrison is below the threshold.

4.  The die roll is weighed against the size of the garrison.  The smaller the delta between what is the currently present AV and the 8,000 AV threshold, the less likely an adverse die roll will result.

5.  An adverse die roll for Japan always results in activating the Soviets.  There is no other penalty applied nor is there any variability.

This would seem to be a real problem, because one of your primary "Japanese AI assist" methods is to harvest Kwantung Army units and send them off on various missions. It's a good idea and it works well, but as you see there is a downside. However. What if we could ensure that the Garrison requirements are always met, right up until Soviet Activation occurs on August 1 1945?

It turns out, that's pretty easy to do. All you need is a single new unit, the "Manchukuo Fort". See item #1 in the attachment for the unit stats as it appears in the editor and then look at Item #2 for the unit's appearance in-game. A few features and issues:

1) You'll note that it's set to withdraw on the date of the Soviet Activation and it also can't be disbanded (red arrows).

2) You have a very active AI that's busy harvesting units from this region, yet it never touches any of the existing Manchurian Forts, so I'm assuming this new one will remain unaffected by any of your existing scripts.

3) The new fort is located in an unoccupied Manchurian city, far from the Soviet border, but you could place it anywhere you like. The only caveat is the new unit has a heavy supply requirement, so you may want to add some sort of automatic supply mechanism for the city, just to make sure we're not adversely affecting the Japanese supply flow in this region.

4) Lastly, this could be problematic for any scenario which is designed for "both" players, as it would allow the Japan-human player to effectively ignore the Manchukuo Garrison requirements. Accordingly is it possible to script the unit to arrive only on January 7th 1941, and only if the Japanese player is human?

[Yaab]

Interesting idea, Kull.

However, one must take note of supply spoilage. At 17k supplies required by your unit, a base will try to gather 54k supplies, thus you need to be in a base which has at least port+airfield=5, giving the base 53k supply capacity. Spoliage destroys 1,2-1,6% of TOTAL supplies at a base which has supplies over its supply capacity limit.

[Kull]

There's literally no issue in using this system with any of the "Japan Ironman" scenarios, since by definition those are playable only as Allied-human and you can do anything you want with supply since the whole point is to buff the Japanese beyond their historical levels. It's only tricky with Scenarios 1 & 2, since you have to account for the possibility of a Japan-human player.

[Andy Mac]

I thought I had in Ironman done something similar I just increased the AV of all the Manchko forts so pretty sure all ironman scenarios have this already with additional LI and resources to make it supply neutral

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I thought I had in Ironman done something similar I just increased the AV of all the Manchko forts so pretty sure all ironman scenarios have this already with additional LI and resources to make it supply neutral

That's a great idea, but let's take a look at the AV of Manchukuo CDs in Scen 10 (see attachment). It's definitely higher - instead of a total AV of about 500 (Scen 1 & 2) all CDs sum up to almost 4500 - but that's still only half the 8000 requirement. It will delay the problem, but not necessarily eliminate it.

If the AV went from an average of 330 to 580 each, that would do it. Or just add one more CD with an AV of 4000 and an 8/1/45 withdrawal date.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Pentakomo

Any luck with device 1467 for japan in scenario 2?

That is fixed in the latest Scen2 updates.

[Andy Mac]

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I thought I had in Ironman done something similar I just increased the AV of all the Manchko forts so pretty sure all ironman scenarios have this already with additional LI and resources to make it supply neutral

That's a great idea, but let's take a look at the AV of Manchukuo CDs in Scen 10 (see attachment). It's definitely higher - instead of a total AV of about 500 (Scen 1 & 2) all CDs sum up to almost 4500 - but that's still only half the 8000 requirement. It will delay the problem, but not necessarily eliminate it.

If the AV went from an average of 330 to 580 each, that would do it. Or just add one more CD with an AV of 4000 and an 8/1/45 withdrawal date.

I don't raid all of army remember scen 1 and 2 have to be playable PBEM as well so I cannot add units that would disturb PBEM balance

Scen 10- has never activated Soviets (except when my script goes wrong and a unit trespasses !!) I don't take enough units and there are other reinforcements

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Scen 10- has never activated Soviets (except when my script goes wrong and a unit trespasses !!) I don't take enough units and there are other reinforcements

It's not you that activates the Soviets. You could drop the Garrison down to ZERO AV, and the AI will not be affected.

The issue is this - if a human player opens the game as Japan in order to give the AI an assist AND the Manchukuo Garrison is below 8000 AV, the Soviets can activate. Eventually - as the game progresses and more and more units are harvested from the Kwantung Army - the garrison is so low that activation is guaranteed, and it becomes impossible for the human player to give the AI a helping hand.

Adding the temporary CD unit is a way to guarantee that never happens, by ensuring that the Manchukuo Garrison cannot fall below 8000 AV.

[Andy Mac]

Actually it is me because I am the one stripping Manchuria of units what is there right now is sufficient its never an issue in Ironman because of the steps I have taken already.

And I cannot fix scen 1 and 2 because of the knock on implication for PBEM and the need to be playable by both sides - basically its fixed as much as I can fix it - putting another 4000 AV into Manchuria is surplus to requirements unless the AI is attacking Manchuria deliberately....

[Andy Mac]

I have stepped into over 100 games for AI players to do modification to the AI and never once activated Soviets in an ironman game - done it a couple of times in Scen 1/2 games before I figured out what I was doing

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I have stepped into over 100 games for AI players to do modification to the AI and never once activated Soviets in an ironman game - done it a couple of times in Scen 1/2 games before I figured out what I was doing

Me too.

Playing Ironman series, and that's all I've played for quite a few years now, no issue. But, when I have tried to help someone else and they are in Scen 1 or 2 …. yikes!!!