Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: US87891

Two quick questions. (One answer here.)

What's the latest AE Michael update download number? I should work and test with what people are using. My old install has 1123 from 2014.

Thanks. Matt

Not sure about the art. Hope this answers the latest Beta query.

Michael attaches the latest to the first post in this thread (always updates the attachment in the first post), often puts notes as the most recent post.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3185062
The attachment currently is:
AEupdate1125m.zip

Shows up as this number in-game:



Whoops! Ignore that number from the attached image. He has an update later than the one I have loaded which I did not notice until now.

The link and quote of the attachment name are current.

That latest (m) version shows this version number in-game.

Another vote and offering of thanks from the peanut gallery for attention to completing the DBB mod.

[&o]

ORIGINAL: Mundy

Matt, I'm seeing an issue in DBB-C regarding the ship type LCS(L).

It's one of the rocket ships. It can only be placed in a transport or support task force -- not an amphib group. This pretty much neuters the ship as it can't really be used. I'm guessing this is set up in the scenario and not the game engine.

Ed

That ship type is not neutered. See my post in your thread on the Tech sub-forum (tm.asp?m=4121527).

Alfred

.

Thank you all.

@witpqs, allright .. 1125.11 .. lots of changes since 1123. Hope there's nothing hiding under a bush somewhere

@chemkid, now I get the Tim Leary thing. John was being his usual obscure self. Wow so many choices. I got the topo map version. I think you called it crunchy and I like crunchy. I also like it that all roads are yellow and all RRs are black. Some of our teams edit road and railroad sizes unmercifully. It's nice not to have to edit the graphics for different road/rr types as well. Very nice and I would jump for very pretty as well.

First on the agenda is the rule book. Can't finalize anything effective without it since the rules define the limits of the operational space. All of the different elements of the scenario must converge within that space. This won't take long having John's notes, but it is mandatory for several reasons, maybe a day or two.

Matt

.

Our small scenario rules are rules in the classical sense. They are not house rules, but "the" rules. They are soft and flexible because we use umpires who understand that rules are guidelines for a commander and sometimes need to be broken under critical circumstances. But the rules are the paradigm.

I think of rules as one might think of rules in a miniatures situation. AE is a computer game and many people think that a computer will handle every and all situation that comes up, and if you can do something that the computer allows, it is valid, because who's to say. In a miniatures fleet problem, what's to prevent someone from simply picking up the models of a BC division and placing it 2000y from the opposing carriers and start rolling dice. Nothing. The rules are silent on that kind of behavior. So just because a computer program allows something doesn't mean that it is valid either. Our scenarios are meant for people who wish to delve deeply into the treasures of operational experience and logistical imperatives. There is no way to "win" a DBB scenario. There is only do, or do not; learn, or learn not.

First part, naval TF rules.
Naval Units

.. Task Forces and Ships – This is substantially the same as sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the manual. However, there are additional restrictions to the number and types of ships that can make up certain Task Forces. This is the general case, but particular scenarios may have scenario specific additions and/or revisions.

.. .. Air Combat Task Forces
The TF composition can vary by time period. An ACTF has a maximum of 2 aircraft carriers (of any type) until 1/43, when it may have a maximum of 3, with a further maximum restriction of 2x CVA and 1x CVL. Multiple ACTFs may operate in the same hex, and in concert, but may not be combined into a TF with a CV count >2 (or 3, post 1/43). The rule is based on USN and IJN operational concepts of Carrier Division (CarDiv) and Task Force/Group composition and leadership.
ACTFs are not interoperable by nationality. A US ACTF must only comprise US carriers. Likewise a UK ACTF must only comprise UK carriers. Different nationality ACTFs may operate in the same hex, and in concert, but they must maintain their national internal identity. Both doctrinal and logistic incompatibilities require this rule.

.. .. Amphibious Task Forces
Allied AmphTFs are for the purpose of assaulting enemy bases. An AmphTF may only comprise AK and AP type ships, along with associated LST/LSI/etc vessels. An ordinary x-type vessel may never be included in an AmphTF for any reason. After they become available, AKA and APA ships may substitute for AK/AP.
IJN AmphTFs may only comprise AK/AP types and specific xAKs that have been converted to carry troops and are specifically listed as xAK-t. An ordinary x-type vessel may never be included in an AmphTF for any reason. For the IJN, an AmphTF comprising xAK-t types should include some AK/APs in order to obtain an unload assist.

.. .. Transport Task Forces.
TransTFs move ground units and supply from point-to-point, between friendly bases .They may neither assault nor act in support of an assault. Allied TransTFs are normally comprised of xAP types. The Allied side may use xAK types for ground units in a TransTF but on a restricted basis.
The restriction rule is somewhat complex and depends on circumstances.
a. For moderate length transport of a typical infantry battalion, or an equivalent sized unit, up to 2 xAKs may be used for the unit without invoking the restriction.
b. Where the unit cannot fit on 2 xAKs, the rule defaults to requiring an xAP.
c. For every xAP in the TF, the player may include up to 2 xAKs.
However, air groups should preferentially load on xAKs for transport. An xAK carrying an air group is not counted against the rule.

Japan is unrestricted in its use of unconverted xAKs for transporting units in a TransTF.

More later. Matt

Very interesting, espacially the ACTF formed like carrier divisions, I would use it as HR in a normal CG.

Matt-

I understand your rules and reasoning, will abide by all. As I play H2H or against the AI, have been aware of but never experienced the fragments exploit.

Really like the historical formations and restrictions. I have much to learn.

Thank You, Sir, for your work.

John told me there are still some hard core AE people who use the scenarios as a professional lexicon. I guess I owe it to them to do the background for the paradigm.

The game engine gives hard coded advantages to the KB (an IJN ACTF with 4 to 6 CVs). There is also a special, IJN only, KB auto-build option available to the AI for auto ACTF builds under script. While useful in achieving reasonable results for the PH attack, it is neither strategically nor tactically appropriate for continuing situations. The original implementation of the ACTF rule was to avoid some of the hard coded advantages given to the KB. It cannot over-ride the AI, so if using the AI for routine tasks, keep aware and split up any KB that may have been auto built.

Working with the rule highlights some considerations and problems faced by naval commanders of the time and the evolution of their solutions; it shows the advantage of mass (without code interference), coupled with the advantage of dispersion and flexibility. It also highlights some of the significant difficulties that both sides faced; the difficulties of inter-TF operational concert, communication (or lack thereof), inter-group weapon loadout / mission differentiation / flight ops timing.

I am having fascinating discussions on this subject with some of my naval colleagues on my floor, here. It appears that the fundamental nature of the Navy is being transformed and the Naval War College is in the throes of redefining naval doctrine to accommodate the new strategic and technological imperatives, using much the same critical approach to much the same considerations. I have it, on good authority, that there is a distinct possibility they may get some of it right this time. (put smiley grin, here)

Matt

The hard-coded KB advantage you refer to is the rule about CV strike coordination, where the IJ get a higher ceiling for most of the way, right?

ORIGINAL: US87891

I think of rules as one might think of rules in a miniatures situation. AE is a computer game and many people think that a computer will handle every and all situation that comes up, and if you can do something that the computer allows, it is valid, because who's to say. In a miniatures fleet problem, what's to prevent someone from simply picking up the models of a BC division and placing it 2000y from the opposing carriers and start rolling dice. Nothing. The rules are silent on that kind of behavior. So just because a computer program allows something doesn't mean that it is valid either.

[&o]+1 Billion
Thank you for so clearly defining the need for HRs.

ORIGINAL: US87891
.. .. Air Combat Task Forces
The TF composition can vary by time period. An ACTF has a maximum of 2 aircraft carriers (of any type) until 1/43, when it may have a maximum of 3, with a further maximum restriction of 2x CVA and 1x CVL. Multiple ACTFs may operate in the same hex, and in concert, but may not be combined into a TF with a CV count >2 (or 3, post 1/43). The rule is based on USN and IJN operational concepts of Carrier Division (CarDiv) and Task Force/Group composition and leadership.
ACTFs are not interoperable by nationality. A US ACTF must only comprise US carriers. Likewise a UK ACTF must only comprise UK carriers. Different nationality ACTFs may operate in the same hex, and in concert, but they must maintain their national internal identity. Both doctrinal and logistic incompatibilities require this rule.

Interesting comments. I negociated a set of HRs similar to this with an opponent using RA8.1 but only wish to support and encourage your effort, not side-track with a discussion of the larger issue of 'HRs/no HRs'. Some players do not like them.

Thanks again

not side-track with a discussion of the larger issue of 'HRs/no HRs'. Some players do not like them.

In the interest of *not* side-tracking (as you note), I'll make this one comment.

I am of the few or no HR ilk, because most all HRs are with the notion that "the game is broken" and this or that just doesn't work fairly (whoever the speaker is defines that).

What Matt posted above is totally different and I like them very much. Wouldn't mind at all if the game engine were altered to them (might not be possible for some of them).

A prior example is the discussion that JWE fostered about transporting fuel via xAK. Haven't done it since then. To be fair, the original versions of the game scenarios did not have all the ancillary ships to make some things possible/practical in the game so I am not commenting on the fact that many people probably still do so, but Babes and derivatives have cured (or largely cured?) the lack of ship types and numbers.

ORIGINAL: DanSez

ORIGINAL: US87891

I think of rules as one might think of rules in a miniatures situation. AE is a computer game and many people think that a computer will handle every and all situation that comes up, and if you can do something that the computer allows, it is valid, because who's to say. In a miniatures fleet problem, what's to prevent someone from simply picking up the models of a BC division and placing it 2000y from the opposing carriers and start rolling dice. Nothing. The rules are silent on that kind of behavior. So just because a computer program allows something doesn't mean that it is valid either.

[&o]+1 Billion
Thank you for so clearly defining the need for HRs.

ORIGINAL: US87891
.. .. Air Combat Task Forces
The TF composition can vary by time period. An ACTF has a maximum of 2 aircraft carriers (of any type) until 1/43, when it may have a maximum of 3, with a further maximum restriction of 2x CVA and 1x CVL. Multiple ACTFs may operate in the same hex, and in concert, but may not be combined into a TF with a CV count >2 (or 3, post 1/43). The rule is based on USN and IJN operational concepts of Carrier Division (CarDiv) and Task Force/Group composition and leadership.
ACTFs are not interoperable by nationality. A US ACTF must only comprise US carriers. Likewise a UK ACTF must only comprise UK carriers. Different nationality ACTFs may operate in the same hex, and in concert, but they must maintain their national internal identity. Both doctrinal and logistic incompatibilities require this rule.

Interesting comments. I negociated a set of HRs similar to this with an opponent using RA8.1 but only wish to support and encourage your effort, not side-track with a discussion of the larger issue of 'HRs/no HRs'. Some players do not like them.

Thanks again

Plus 1

I have just, today, finished Ian Toll's "Pacific Crucible: The War at Sea in the Pacific 1941 - 1945".

Absolutely Outstanding; the detailed OPS descriptions giving (in my opinion), validity to Matt's (and the Babes Team) guidance and restrictions on TF compositions.

Mac

That is really encouraging Mac. After my retirement, I spent several years teaching Military Science courses at Norwich, Tufts, and TAMU. The students were always attentive, but every now and again, one would grab me after class and say "Why". It is those discussions that make me realize why I did this in the first place.

You go, boy.

[ed] Absorb all you can. But don't make the mistake of only considering those texts that confirm your own notions. Views from the other side often highlight certain facts that deserve mature consideration. Regardless of the outcome, critical analysis is key. You seem to be on the right path.

Matt

All right then, some Ground Units

Ground units have been broken down into the constituent elements necessary for a battalion level game scenario. The highest echelon is the Regiment/Brigade (3x Inf Bn equivalents). Regiments/Brigades do not include slices of DivArty, Recce, Eng; these are separate and distinct units. Some regiments/brigades have been initially broken down to battalion level, but these may recombine normally. Likewise, some battalions have been initially broken down to company level. These too may recombine normally. Only recombination is allowed and, once performed, is final.

For these scenarios, the AE game engine does not allow units at regiment/brigade echelon level, or smaller, to break down. This shall not be circumvented. The intentional creation of fragments to obtain any form of operational advantage is not allowed. If you are on Bolshoi Detsi or LesGrosBébés, umpire call.

Notional divisions exist as a Div HQ unit, with all the separate, subordinate units reporting thereto. Div HQ is home to the Commander and provides combat advantages (radius-1) depending on his specs. Div HQ also contains a large quantity of division support. The division HQ can only add its support to other units when all are co-located at a base.

Combat is wearing, fatigue and disruption grow rapidly. Combat units intentionally do not have enough integral support squads for long-term, high-intensity combat. Maintenance of reserves, front line rotation scheduling, periodic relief to a base camp, and awareness of the need for eventual withdrawal to a main base area for rest and reconstitution, is strongly recommended.

Different nations treated constituent regiment/brigade assignment to division echelon differently.
.. UK/AUS/NZ/IND Brigades were fungible (as were their own constituent Bns). These Brigades may freely change the DivHQ to which they are assigned.
.. US Army Regiments (and ancillary constituent units) are not fungible and belong to their parent DivHQ. They should neither be reassigned to another DivHQ, nor stray very far from their own. Umpire call if needs absolutely must.
.. USMC Regiments (and ancillary constituents) are quasi-fungible. Marine Regiments (infantry and/or artillery) from one MarDiv may be temporarily assigned to another for operational control, but they retain their parent division assignment identity.
.. IJA Regiments were fungible in the abstract sense. Nominally, they belonged to their parent DivHQ, but were often split out (perhaps with a vestigial brigade HQ element) for independent operations.

Base Forces: These are the hardest units to define because the nominal AE/AI code adjusts their contents to conform to AI requirements without regard to anything else. It will eventually skew the game. If you are on Bolshoi Detsi or LesGrosBébés you are ok, but if on nominal AE, serious caution and constant attention is urged. Umpire intervention will happen.
There are several kinds:
.. Allied Base Forces are tactical, land/sea/air support and control organizations. They do not provide HQ type infrastructure support. These are nominal BF designated Eng units in the scenario.
.. IJN “Special” Base Forces are tactical, sea area, control organizations, not having a significant naval HQ function. They had a congeries of boats and light patrol units, and a variable number of Naval Guard Units. These are nominal BF designated Eng units in the scenario
.. IJN Base Forces are Naval HQ units acting in loco parentis for their corresponding Fleet HQ, with component CD/AA Units, Port Units, Sub Base Units, Constr Units. They had tactical control over a variable number of Naval Guard Units.

Adaptive use of restriction is made. See individual scenario requirements.

Can't wait to play this babe [:)]

Thanks for your interest. It should be a fun scenario.

The Japanese OOB is cleaned up and ready. Be aware, the scenario premise is Op SF, where Japan tries to eat an elephant with a pitifully small set of chopsticks. A foregone conclusion is that she may achieve some initial objectives, and may achieve and retain naval superiority for a time, but the worm will turn and the Allies will return the favor in the Solomons and New Guinea in spades. So the Japanese reinforcement schedule takes this into account. There is an 'uh oh!' in August that sparks a further infusion of strength, and a big 'oh, crap!' in October. Unfortunately, the ebb and flow of the scenario sometimes makes the reinforce schedule somewhat strained and arbitrary. Sadly, the AE system does not have the ability to advance and/or retard introductions in ongoing games, depending on circumstances. Some adjustments can be made, but would like to have those suggestions come from people who have played the scenario.

Without further ado, here's the red team.

Japanese Administrative/Ground/Air Forces
Garrison and Holding Forces
IJN and IJA Forces

1st Southern Expeditionary Fleet: - VAdm. Jisaburo Ozawa, Saigon (PermR)
.. .. Off-map/Not Included in this scenario

2nd Southern Expeditionary Fleet: - VAdm. Shiro Takasu, Soerabaja (PermR)
16th Army: - LtG Hitoshi Imamura, Makassar (PermR)
.. 21, 22, 23, 24, Special Base Forces (+component AA, CD, BF Avn Sup Units) (PermR)
.. .. 5x Bns IJN Naval Guard Units (PermR)
.. .. 7x Bns IJA Garrison Inf Units (PermR)
.. .. 6x Equiv Bns IJA Inf (in 2x Inf Rgts), +1x Indep Arty Bn (PermR)
.. .. 3x Avn Sup Bns IJA (PermR)
.. .. 4x Avn Sup Bns IJN (Free)

3rd Southern Expeditionary Fleet: - VAdm. Rokuzo Sugiyama, Manila (PermR)
14th Army: - LtG Masaharu Homma, Manila (PermR)
.. 30, 31, 32, 35 Special Base Forces (+component AA, CD, BF Avn Sup Units) (PermR)
.. .. 5x Bns IJN Naval Guard Units (PermR)
.. .. 2x Bns IJN Naval Constr Units (PermR)
.. .. 9x Equiv Bns IJA Inf (in 3x Inf Rgts) of 30th Inf Div, + Div HQ, 3x DivArty Bns (PermR)

Operational Forces
IJN Forces

4th Fleet: - VAdm. Shigeyoshi Inoue, Truk (Free)
.. 4, 5, 6, Base Force HQ (+component AA, CD, BF Nav/Avn Sup Units) (PermR)
.. .. 10x Bns IJN Naval Guard Units (TempR)

8th Fleet: - VAdm. Gunichi Mikawa, Rabaul (Free)
.. 8th Base Force HQ (+component AA, CD, Nav Sup Units) (PermR)
.. .. 1,7 Special Base Units (TempR)
.. .. 5x Bns IJN Naval Guard Units (TempR)

11th Air Fleet: - VAdm. Nishizo Tsukahara, Rabaul (Free)
.. 24th Air Flotilla HQ, Kwajalein (Free)
.. .. 6x Equiv Bns IJN Avn Sup (Free)
.. 25th Air Flotilla HQ, Rabaul (Free)
.. .. 7x Equiv Bns IJN Avn Sup (Free)
.. 26th Air Flotilla HQ, Saipan (4208 Reinforcement) (Free)
.. .. 4x Equiv Bns IJN Avn Sup (Free)
.. 21st Air Flotilla HQ, Babeldaob (4209 Reinforcement) (Free)
.. .. 4x Equiv Bns IJN Avn Sup (Free)

.. 12x Bns IJN SNLF (6x at start, 2x on 4207, 4x periodic reinforcement)
.. 17x Bns IJN Naval Constr Units (2x at start, 7x in 4207, 8x periodic reinforcement)
.. 17x Bns AA Units (7x at start, 2x on 4207, 8x periodic reinforcement)

Operational Forces
IJA Forces

17th Army HQ: - LtG Harukichi Hyakutake, Rabaul
.. So Seas group HQ, Horii – Begins 420601 – Rabaul
.. .. 6x Bns IJA Inf (in 2x Inf Rgts), +1x Arty Bn
.. 35th Brigade Grp HQ, Kawaguchi – Begins 420601 – Babeldaob
.. .. 6x Bns IJA Inf (in 2x Inf Rgts), +1x Arty Bn
.. 2nd Inf Div HQ, Maruyama – Begins 420601 – Davao
.. .. 9x Bns IJA Inf (in 3x Inf Rgts) + Recce Bn, 3x DivArty Bns
.. 38th Inf Div HQ, Sano – Arrives 420627 – Davao
.. .. 9x Bns IJA Inf (in 3x Inf Rgts) + 3x DivArty Bns
.. 21st Brigade Grp HQ, Yamagata – Arrives 420812 – Davao
.. .. 3x Bns IJA Inf (of 107th Inf Rgt), +1x Arty Bn
.. 6th Inf Div HQ, Kanda – Arrives 420912 – Davao
.. .. 9x Bns IJA Inf (in 3x Inf Rgts) + Recce Bn, 3x DivArty Bns
.. 65th Brigade Grp HQ, Naka – Arrives 421006 – Davao
.. .. 6x Bns IJA Inf (in 2x Inf Rgts), +1x Arty Bn

18th Army HQ: - LtG Hatazo Adachi, Wewak (421109 reinforcement)
.. 51st Inf Div HQ, Nakano – Arrives 420811 – Babeldaob
.. .. 9x Bns IJA Inf (in 3x Inf Rgts) + Recce Bn, 3x DivArty Bns
.. 20th Inf Div HQ, Katagiri – Arrives 421118 – Davao
.. .. 9x Bns IJA Inf (in 3x Inf Rgts) + Recce Bn, 3x DivArty Bns
.. 41st Inf Div HQ, Mano – Arrives 421212 – Babeldaob
.. .. 9x Bns IJA Inf (in 3x Inf Rgts) + Recce Bn, 3x DivArty Bns

.. 6th Air Div HQ: - LtG Giichi Itahana, Wewak (421125 reinforcement)

.. 14x Bns IJA Eng/Constr Units (6x at start, 8x periodic reinforcement)
.. 10x IJA Ship/Port Eng Units (1x at start, 9x periodic reinforcement)
.. 23x Bns IJA Mortar/Rapid Fire/Arty (1x at start, 3x in 4208, 19x periodic reinforcement)
.. 7x IJA Avn Sup Units (1x at start, 6x periodic reinforcement)

Matt-

Thank You for the kind words and encouragement.

Am now on Toll, Volume 2, The Conquering Tide. Am beginning to realize that all past books read or waiting in my library are a good starting point; but Toll's extensive notes and source references demonstrate the systematic, in depth study required to really understand and comprehend the subject. As noted, the Forum book list is a good start; will be sure to also review the source notes in the books I already have on hand.

I suspect that I should start with books that give the big picture- new and old (i.e. "Eagle Against the Sun", and Toland's "The Rising Sun", for example).

And:

Even with this first, small step (Toll), my appreciation for the depth of research and thought that went into AE- design and coding that allows the scenario designers and players to conform (within limits) to the realities and limits faced by historical commanders- has only grown.

Was on a real life Rafting Trip (support Bus Driver- my summer job) for the past three days; as I read each evening, the desire to play, learn and experiment was overwhelming... <grin>

Cricket Mac