Matrix Games Forums

One day, in the distant future, it would be a treat to have Da big Babes capable of doing Allies against the AI. Oh to dream Echoing the other comments, thanks to all those involved.

Been tracking from afar.

Muchos gracias for including AI play possibilities to Ensign with time to spare.

Appreciated is the work you guys have put in and continue to put in above and beyond any call of duty (calls of nature being a different cauldron of catfish of course).

Looking forward to investigating culmination impact of shorter rubber bands and flotation capabilities of new ships.

Guessing Allied AI is a project in and of itself. If many hand make light work, and the broth is not getting overstirred, I can lift small bricks over short distances should future ventures be planned.

JWE,

You made the statement that NavSup as whole for both sides is overrepresented in stock and thus reduced in DBB. From your earlier discussion you mentioned that some NavSup is actually represented in the Port Expansion routine of the game. If I understand this correctly, Port Expansion + on map NavSup = total amount of NavSup available to both sides. It is a cornerstone premise of DBB that the amount of those two components is overexagerated when compared to RL

My first question is: have Port SPS values been adjusted in DBB at all? Conversely was it decided to only change the NavSup in units as that is obviously more quantifiable and easier to distrubute? I am just wondering what the overall approach to this was especially on how it relates to Port SPS.

Personally, I might advocate having more NavSup in units but nearly eliminating Port expansion as an option in all but those ports that were well developed pre-war. The rest of the "expansion would have to come from placement of large service units at relevant bases. This would have a couple of effects, the first being that there would be a little more freedom as the players would not be necessarily tied to historically used ports. The second would be that valuable facilities that werenot used by either side can be uised in AE if a side chooses to reinforce through a different routre or base system

Just wondering how this was settled? ANd how do you feel about its running to this point.

Authour's note: written after the Ambien so if its incoherant - not my fault

ORIGINAL: vettim89
Authour's note: written after the Ambien so if its incoherant - not my fault

Hello Vettim89, no worries, I take Paxil. – good question. Answer has a lot to do with that thing I keep talking about; i.e., how different game aspects play together. There’s three things going on: Engineers, Port Size, and NavSup. Since the differences are fundamental to DBB, I’m going to have to get detailed, so please bear with me.

Traditional NavSup can do 3 things; 1- help unload, 2- help rearm, 3- help repair. Port Size can also do 3 things; 1- help unload, 2- help rearm, 3- help repair. When these are added together, one can turn any decent port into San Diego, or Maizuru. Under the stock system, almost every single unit had enough engineer capability to allow it to build Noumea into Mare Island. This allowed both sides to establish 30 or 40 decent frontline Port locations, whereas the reality was 8 to 12.

The Engineer tweaks, effectively nerf the construction units such that they don’t count for assault value, or fort reduction. Other tweaks nerf them further such that 27 squads might work more like 9. The point of all this is to give a job of work to all the construction Eng Bns out there (think Seabees or IJN Constr Rgts). They cannot AV or reduce forts, just build (Seabees can’t reduce forts, but they can AV – although you won’t want them to).

So Ports will build up more slowly, and one will have to commit construction units to that end. Clearly a Seabee Bn will do the deed way faster than a Japanese Rgt of ‘termites’.

Port Size; nothing really changes here. The issue with Port Size is that it grows so quickly, by highly over-competent engineer units. Slow that down, and Port Size begins to look reasonable. The real point is making Port Size the ultimate arbiter of repair/rearm; some few units can really help, but they are far and few between.

The NavSup tweaks aggregate NavSup squads into a limited number of units that can be deployed at a Port of choice (presumably a good one). The problem with NavSup is that it can do so many different things. However, the actual number of torpedo shops and ship repair stations was extremely limited (for both sides).

NavSup is broken into two areas: traditional NavSup (extremely limited), and Shore Party NavSup. Shore Party units carry out the load/unload assistance functions of traditional NavSup, but can’t do anything else. The vast majority of stock NavSup has been redefined in terms of SP units, and the Japanese OOB has been greatly expanded in this regard.

So the traditional NavSup functions have been limited to a realistic few units (mobile and deployable), while the stevedore/amphib support functions have been expanded at the Bn level (smaller numbers of effective squads).

Needed to keep a serious poopload of data in mind, for all 3 areas, so there’s going to be some blivets, but we’ve been dialing with this paradigm for a year and nothing has raised it’s ugly head so far.

Hope this makes sense. John

That was a brilliant explanation, thanks JWE!!