Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: witpqs

As I recall Nimitz being quoted in his bio, it was "a ship a day", so I believe that counted DE's, DD's, and so on.

This was an amphibious landing, so an APA, AKA, or even an LST would also be a "combat vessel".

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
As related question, did you guys tinker with the issue (or non-issue maybe) of ships running out of AAA ammo very quickly?

Didn't tinker because I couldn't see what ya'll are seeing. This is what the Test-TF ammo looks like after a day of air attack. An average of 250 sorties flown against a 10 ship TF (2x SoDaks, 3x Clevelands, 5x Fletchers, all pretty hefty late 43 models). Air attacks were morning and afternoon, 4x airgroups, splitting into roughly 40 flights. 20 of the 40 got chewed on twice because they came in at altitude, so there was ‘technically’ 60 flights getting shot at by some ship or other, at some time or other.

But at the end of the day, everybody still had a good chunk of their ammo left (about 80%). This was the same over 180 test runs. Only the DP guns get caught a bit short. That’s because they get kinda-sorta two shots at some things. They have the ceiling to whack a plane at approach altitude, where a Bofors or an Oerlikon don’t. Once planes are in the attack profile, everybody, including the DPs, gets to have fun.

I think there’s other things that may be going on with ammo that might help cause that “empty feeling”. But I really don’t think it’s AAA per se.

It's an extreme example, but if you do want a look at one see the save game I put in the tech support thread.

Any how the improvement in AA looks great - when do you plan to kick it out of the nest?

Yep, sounds good! [8D]

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz
I certainly hope that most of the Babes changes can be integrated into current games. I just don't remember what changes can or cannot be introduced into ongoing games...

I think some of them can be. Here's what michaelm says about it.

ORIGINAL: michaelm
You can add some database changes to games in play but not all as something are determined and created at the start based on the data in the scenario.
IIRC, I caused issues when I mistakenly included ship changes in the update.

This is the items that I believe can be added to a game in play.
2. Device Changes 3. Aircraft Changes 4. TO&E Changes (these will only take effect when a unit gets to its next TO&E upgrade point)5. Class changes

From 1.00.84 WhatsNew file

Also this applies to any scenario updates, not just the official ones.
The game compares the save against the current scenario tables and reports if an update is possible.

Please don't take this as criticism. I'm just posting an observation from my Babes Lite game as allies vs AI.

I had a Balao class sub action surface on an xAKL. It took 45 hits (mostly .50 cal, but a couple of 5") to sink it. I was pretty happy with the encounter.

Anyway, I looked at the sunk ships screen at the end of the turn and it says sunk by device "40mm......." (It's device 1539)

I assumed it would say sunk by "5"25/10....." (device 1579, I think)

I noticed that the effect on the 40mm is more than the effect on the 5", due to the AAA tweaks. I believe sunk ships just use the largest effect device that hit them.

I think the hit ratio of .50cal, 20mm, 40mm, and 5" seemed good. I didn't see mass hits of 40mm over the 5". It was around 50% .50cal, 20% 20mm and 20% 40mm and about 10% 5".

Anyway, I love the AAA tweak in my game. I'm seeing similar results that Oldman is seeing. It feels right. I just thought you'd be interested in my observation re the sunk ship screen.

Are you sure about what weapon shows up on the sunk ships list? Might it just be the last weapon to hit? I don't actually know, this is a query not a challenge.

I'm not 100% sure of what decides the "sunk by" weapon. I'm mostly sure it's the effect. I have seen ships damaged via subs, go to port, and sink due to 500lb bombs from plane port attack. the "sunk by" is usually the torpedo, not the bomb.

I think the largest weapon that has ever hit the ship is what is listed. I've seen some ships hit early in the war, survive, and months later sink to something small, and show the weapon that damaged it months before.

Anyway, this is off topic (slightly) from this AAA thread....

I have seen some strange results in the ship sunk list and I think its only the last weapon hit that it tracks.

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
I'm not 100% sure of what decides the "sunk by" weapon.

Me neither. It's a "flagged" value that just pops up. It's not relevant to anything, so there was no reason to look at it.

Hey, out of curiousity -
Do you consider the modifications you're making to Triple-A to be an inseparable and proprietary part of the DaBabes mod?

Or are users free to - for personal enjoyment only - mirror the changes, once released, into their own private mods? Obviously actually releasing anything using the untold hours upon hours upon days of hard work that you've put into these changes would be beyond rude and into repulsive, if permission wasn't granted in advance, credit wasn't given and some sort of deal wasn't worked out, but...

If we're keeping our mod to ourselves, would you mind terribly?

Hopefully this isn't a rude question!
~Kaoru

ORIGINAL: Kaoru

Hey, out of curiousity -
Do you consider the modifications you're making to Triple-A to be an inseparable and proprietary part of the DaBabes mod?

Or are users free to - for personal enjoyment only - mirror the changes, once released, into their own private mods? Obviously actually releasing anything using the untold hours upon hours upon days of hard work that you've put into these changes would be beyond rude and into repulsive, if permission wasn't granted in advance, credit wasn't given and some sort of deal wasn't worked out, but...

If we're keeping our mod to ourselves, would you mind terribly?

Hopefully this isn't a rude question!
~Kaoru

JWE did post the formula they used for the effect in one of the threads. And while I can't say yay or nay for them, the information is now public.

Edit: And since I'm in a less than usual grumpy mood this morning (reference: Geezer Thread [:'(] ) I'll link you to the discussion: tm.asp?m=2615965

Previously JWE has posted - more than once - that they are pleased to have people take DBB and run with it.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Kaoru
-snip-

JWE did post the formula they used for the effect in one of the threads. And while I can't say yay or nay for them, the information is now public.

Edit: And since I'm in a less than usual grumpy mood this morning (reference: Geezer Thread [:'(] ) I'll link you to the discussion: tm.asp?m=2615965

I noticed the formula in that topic, though was hoping to be lazy and wait until the actual values had been released with a Babes scenario - though there's little enough to stop me from doing the work myself. Thank you for the heads-up, Shark. And for the lack of grumpyness, too, hah.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Previously JWE has posted - more than once - that they are pleased to have people take DBB and run with it.

Then I shall run like an Olympic sprinter!
~Kaoru

They are already released Kaoru. All four of the babes scenarios have the new AAA values.

ORIGINAL: JWE

They are already released Kaoru. All four of the babes scenarios have the new AAA values.

Oh! Well, I feel unobservant, now. Thanks! Off to update the Babes, then. Must've missed that at some point, haa.

Just passing 3 mths into the game, as well as the normal BB adjustments I'm seeing a little effect of the AAA tweak.

About 35% of japanese losses are to AAA.
But, There is basically no Allied CAP available so this minimizes A-A losses, might be a false value.
Most japanese attacks have been against a still holding out Singapore which has a pretty strong AAA defense, I see raids which have 50%+ damaged bombers which hopefully makes their attacks less effective. Damage must be fixed quickly as the size of the raids remain consistant. Some aircraft suffer more than others, SALLY is taking heavy knocks (50% losses to AAA) but this could be their armour rating, height of attack or bad luck.

I havent had a CV battle yet, I've got 4USN CV & 2 RN CV that might sortie soon as with Russia in the war I will build up the Aleutians a bit early to cover a LOC to Siberia so I might get a LBA attack or two (I'll upgrade CV ASAP, 2 are in dock at the moment)

My feel, I havent the patience (or computer speed) to run tests, but I feel that AAA has teeth, not too many at this point and it causes a lot more disruption through damage to attackers which IMHO is correct.

Oops, wrong forum. Disregard (if you can)!

My grandfather was in command of a heavy ground AA unit in the Pacific. He explained to me, complete with drawings, geometry, and mathematics, exactly what was involved in targeting AA guns on aircraft. The quality of the crews, much more so than the size of the batteries, was the absolutely critical factor in determining AA success. If the crews all understood how to calculate the geometry and vectors of shells and incoming aircraft correctly and quickly, then properly sight the guns (also quickly) in unison to lay down a proper and tightly coordinated AA pattern, they could light up incoming aircraft. Without crews capable of doing the geometry and applying it to the weapons sights, they could not hit anything. The proximity and tight pattern of the detonations was much more important than the size of the shell.

And he was right. But the game can't figure out who was hot and who was not, so AA is based on the "nominal" gun/shell characteristics, that work for everyone. One might try giving your favorite AA Unit a high experience value.