DaBigBabes Beta errata

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I am in a PBM stock scenario 1, and I've noticed an issue that is also present in "DaBigBabes Full Campaign" (I checked in the editor and saw that it is present).

The issue is this: All the various nationalities have their infantry squads updated periodically. To facilitate managing this the have been given names like "Aus Inf 42", "USA Inf 43", etc. All except the Chinese. Device numbers 1301, 1302, and 1303 are all identically named "Chinese Rifle Squad". This makes it almost impossible to see which LCU's have upgraded versus which ones haven't.

They should be named by the year of availability, as:

device 1301 = "Chinese Rifle Squad 41"
device 1302 = "Chinese Rifle Squad 43"
device 1303 = "Chinese Rifle Squad 45"

While not a Babes errata per se, AFAIK the change would be easy and it sure would help managing an important sector of the war. Please consider it.
[8D]

Hmmm ... never thought of it that way before; it does make sense. Afraid we did a bit more of that in DaBigBabes. If it's really a ditch we'll sure consider changing it. Anybody else .. ?

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I am in a PBM stock scenario 1, and I've noticed an issue that is also present in "DaBigBabes Full Campaign" (I checked in the editor and saw that it is present).

The issue is this: All the various nationalities have their infantry squads updated periodically. To facilitate managing this the have been given names like "Aus Inf 42", "USA Inf 43", etc. All except the Chinese. Device numbers 1301, 1302, and 1303 are all identically named "Chinese Rifle Squad". This makes it almost impossible to see which LCU's have upgraded versus which ones haven't.

They should be named by the year of availability, as:

device 1301 = "Chinese Rifle Squad 41"
device 1302 = "Chinese Rifle Squad 43"
device 1303 = "Chinese Rifle Squad 45"

While not a Babes errata per se, AFAIK the change would be easy and it sure would help managing an important sector of the war. Please consider it.
[8D]

Hmmm ... never thought of it that way before; it does make sense. Afraid we did a bit more of that in DaBigBabes. If it's really a ditch we'll sure consider changing it. Anybody else .. ?

This is a change I make in the editor. However, there is a limit on the number of characters. I think you can type all you want, but only a certain number of characters will display. I think it's 19. You'd have to type: Chinese Rifle Sq 41 for it to work.

I realize that a decision would have to be made that puts historical accuracy (full spelling) against playability (abbreviated spelling.) If it matters, I agree with witps. It's important to know when you're sending units to attack or defend.

[Whisper]

ORIGINAL: JWE
Hmmm ... never thought of it that way before; it does make sense. Afraid we did a bit more of that in DaBigBabes. If it's really a ditch we'll sure consider changing it. Anybody else .. ?

My fault, wrong footed John on this. that would be a good to see to make sure sub units are up to snuff before a recombine.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Whisper

ORIGINAL: JWE
Hmmm ... never thought of it that way before; it does make sense. Afraid we did a bit more of that in DaBigBabes. If it's really a ditch we'll sure consider changing it. Anybody else .. ?

My fault, wrong footed John on this. that would be a good to see to make sure sub units are up to snuff before a recombine.

Yes, and also for combat. There are huge capability differences between some of the equipment levels.

[drw61]

Like bradley7735 I also change the Chinese Rifle Squads in the editor to reflect the year.

[Whisper]

I fixed that up and sent it to John, up to him when he posts it but they are easy to do it yourself.

Found a update bug too. Number 716, IJN Constr Eng Sq updates to IJA Const Eng Sq. Number 717 IJN Const Labor Sq updates to IJA Const Labor Sq. This is wrong. They should update to themselves or to 000 None. Another easy to do it yourself.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Whisper

I fixed that up and sent it to John, up to him when he posts it but they are easy to do it yourself.

Thanks!

I want DBB to be my next PBM foray, and an opponent might be wary "Oh, and I fixed something myself!" [8D]

[Whisper]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Whisper

I fixed that up and sent it to John, up to him when he posts it but they are easy to do it yourself.

Thanks!

I want DBB to be my next PBM foray, and an opponent might be wary "Oh, and I fixed something myself!" [8D]

John has a policy about not making revisions for everything that comes up. This is a good poilicy and keeps everything real stable for everybody but I know how it is whaen you play somebody who might not be so trusting as me, (ha ha) .

Here is what I sent to John and what he will have in next update whenever. You and your opponent can download the same zip from here and have the same game and no questions.

It has the wpd squad text updates and the upgrade fix for scenario 28 and 29.

[Central Blue]

I am noticing something about air support with the new version of the mod for playing against the Japanese AI. Could be related to the new patch; I wish I had paid better attention to the sequence I am about to describe [:(]

Anyway, I was facing a local emergency against the AI, and I dropped some squadrons into Townsville with less than necessary air support figuring I would rail them out after the emergency was dealt with. Funny thing is that after a few turns I noticed that the squadrons were operating as if they had full support. It has been my experience that broken planes would start to stack up on the field because of the lack of support.

Yeah, it could be the new patch, but I didn't see any advertised changes that would affect support in that category. At the same time, I can't imagine why the Babe's mod would be the cause unless there was invisible air support built into some of the units or bases. And I can't remember if I moved those air units into Townsville before or after the patch which is nearly the least helpful sort of report there is.

Lots of smart people check these Babe threads, so I figure one of you will let me know where to head in with this report. [:D]

In general I am enjoying the heck out of the mod and learning how to deal with the tough circumstances faced by the Allies at the start of the campaign -- mainly the lack of naval support that really slows cargo operations. I am also noticing some nice tweaks to the TOE's.

Kudos to the Babe team. It's pretty much what I've been dreaming about since PacWar.

[witpqs]

Even with the new patch I find I need adequate air support. Like you I also can't imagine how a mod would affect that anyway.

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Even with the new patch I find I need adequate air support. Like you I also can't imagine how a mod would affect that anyway.

Yeah, It's a weird one. I've been running Townsville at a deficit for almost a month now and three squadrons of P40's are doing just fine with the 18 aviation support squads from the 6th RAN base force and 8 from the Horn Island base force. I recently moved in the unit from Charter Towers because I felt like I was cheating -- not that the AI complains.

Aside from some early attack missions on the Cairns invasion, they have been flying CAP at 30% each. There have been a few ops losses, but no planes are in endless repair mode. So the planes that were damaged during the attack missions -- not well trained for those missions either -- have all repaired from their damage.

Maybe I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth?

It's just something I don't remember seeing before.

[rockmedic109]

Could the size of the base help a low number of support be able to repair planes faster?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
I am noticing something about air support with the new version of the mod for playing against the Japanese AI. Could be related to the new patch; I wish I had paid better attention to the sequence I am about to describe [:(]

Anyway, I was facing a local emergency against the AI, and I dropped some squadrons into Townsville with less than necessary air support figuring I would rail them out after the emergency was dealt with. Funny thing is that after a few turns I noticed that the squadrons were operating as if they had full support. It has been my experience that broken planes would start to stack up on the field because of the lack of support.

Yeah, it could be the new patch, but I didn't see any advertised changes that would affect support in that category. At the same time, I can't imagine why the Babe's mod would be the cause unless there was invisible air support built into some of the units or bases. And I can't remember if I moved those air units into Townsville before or after the patch which is nearly the least helpful sort of report there is.

Lots of smart people check these Babe threads, so I figure one of you will let me know where to head in with this report. [:D]

In general I am enjoying the heck out of the mod and learning how to deal with the tough circumstances faced by the Allies at the start of the campaign -- mainly the lack of naval support that really slows cargo operations. I am also noticing some nice tweaks to the TOE's.

Kudos to the Babe team. It's pretty much what I've been dreaming about since PacWar.

Well, I ain't that smart, but I'll give it a shot anyway. There's nothing in the new patch that messes with AvSup, so don't think it's that. We tried our very best to remove all the double secret AvSup everywhere in the scenario. Looked at 6th RAN and Horn Island and what you see is what you get (18 + 8).

AvSup works a bit different in different situations. You need both AvSup and supply. You definitely want 1 to 1 AvSup-to-planes to have planes perform their mission properly. It's not really 1 to 1 for repair/maintenance. Lots depends on activity level. A low overall activity level (say, 30% routine CAP, 70% resting) doesn't need AvSup=total planes in all squadrons at base. It's not hard to repair/maintain damaged/fatigued aircraft, if there's only a few, even though you have less than 'optimal' AvSup.

Problems (boneyards) arises when activity level goes up; lots of planes on lots of missions, planes acquiring maintenance fatigue and damage faster than repair/rotation, and things just finally fall off the cliff. Daily routine, low-level, 'stuff' won't stress the support. A 'push', whether offensive or defensive can be covered, short-term, by accepting more aircraft maintenance fatigue and rotating in any reserve aircraft. Sooner or later (sooner) the rug gets pulled out from under.

Again, it's a matter of tempo. Minimal activity can be supported by minimal infrastructure for a long time. Nominal activity can be supported by minimal infrastructure for a short time, till the grease monkeys get tired and the mess hall runs out of sausages - then ... pffft.

[Central Blue]

Hi JWE. I appreciate your insight on this. It explains what I am seeing around the map.

My current theory is that there was just so much more support available early in the stock version that it was difficult for a person of my conservative druthers to push the envelope on the relationship between support and planes. I though there was a pretty ironclad 1 to 1 relationship between planes and support. Now that I know there's not . . .

I'll admit that it also took me a while to realize that I would need to spend some PP's if I wanted more base groups for Oz in the early days.

[JWE]

I’m really pleased with your comments and also witpqs’. It sounds like things are working for ya’ll kinda like we thought they would.

Idea was to give just enough to support routine, every day stuff, but as ops tempo increases the cliff edge gets way closer, and if one does “VMF at the Canal” type ops, well … it’s like the guy who fell off a 50 story building; people on the floors he passed heard him say ‘so far, so good’.

There was, indeed, way too much AvSup available in stock. It allowed continuous huge raids and is (ioho) a large contributor to observed skewed combat results because of the huge numbers of participants. There is no blame, no harm, no foul – the OOB and the Air people each did what was appropriate given their own particular circumstances. It was likely just a case of a missed implication. If stock is played conservatively, or even rationally, things work like they should, the window was just too wide on the hi-tempo end.

Wondered if we may have closed it too much, but ya’lls comments are making us feel rather comfy. Thank you. Please keep it up.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Wondered if we may have closed it too much, but ya’lls comments are making us feel rather comfy. Thank you. Please keep it up.

My comment was about AE versus WITP. I don't have a feel specifically for DBB as yet.

[oldman45]

I am happy to echo what Central Blue stated, I think its great what you have done. I now have the option to set up satellite fields, open the route to Oz from Palmyra and still have room for defences. The port services units are a god send. I am very happy with the results.

[noguaranteeofsanity]

Not sure if it is intentional or a small error, but the following NZ base forces are listed as Australian units in both Dec 7th and Dec 8th scenarios:

6254 Palmerston North Base Force
6255 Waipapakauri Base Force
6256 Gisborne Base Force
6258 Nandi Base Force

It just appears to be those in the North Island and the one in Fiji, the other New Zealand base forces are all Kiwis.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: medicff
Love DaBigBabes [:D]

Trying to understand new HQ system.

There really isn’t a new HQ system. Different kinds of HQ can “do” different kinds of things. All we did was add a half dozen new Naval District HQ so they could “do” their stuff. Also made I and V Amphib Corps into amphibious corps (HQ type = 31) from regular corps (HQ type = 1). Don’t know whether this was all that good an idea. But that was it.

US I amphib corps does not show up for avail to assign units to. Necessary for bonus in my understanding.

Units do not need to be assigned to a HQ to get bonuses. Command, Army, Corps HQs give bonus to any unit within its command radius. Amphib HQ gives bonus to amphib assaulting units “in the same hex”.

Air HQ show up when trying to assign Infantry to other HQ - is this intended. Thought air was for air, ground for ground, etc.

Thanks again
Pat

That happens all the time in stock too; and Naval HQs often show up as well. Not intentional, or unintentional, its just the way it happens.

[JWE]

With respect to amphib HQs, there’s two things of concern.
1) once they perform their amphib bonus function, may they come ashore and function like a “nominal” corps HQ. We’re still looking, but don’t think so.
2) leader selection is governed by HQ type, and amphib HQs get Naval leaders (like Turner and Uncle Dan the Amphibious man).

In-game, there’s III, V, VII Amphib “Force” as well as I, V Amphib “Corps”. It’s looking more reasonable to have the Phib “Force” HQs be amphibious (type = 31), while having the Phib “Corps” be be nominal (type = 01).

Changing back won’t have much real impact, except that if Howlin Mad Smith gets whacked, he can be replaced by another Marine General instead of an Admiral.