Load Costs for Modding

[JWE]

In some respects, this is a caution to modders because tweaking one value, in a vacuum, will likely screw up something you have not considered and lead to unanticipated results that are often not clearly discernable.

The original paradigm had “tanks” and such with LCs equal to their IRL tonnage. This was fine for WiTP, but it imposed a major push on “troop count”, especially when considered in combination with the Support strength required, such that a 600 man Tank Bn had a troop count of 1200 and would severely impact the Atoll stacking limits, ship capacity, and the like. The AE load model handles this differently from WiTP.

There is a table of capacity usages (6.3.2.3) that triples the LC of an “AFV” device, so there is no need to specify the actual tonnage of a Stuart Lt Tank. If the M3 is defined in terms of its crew (4 or so), the M3 LC will be 9 or 12 (in cargo) but the troop count calculation will be more gentle to the Atoll stacking algorithm.

There are lots of different variables that modders can use, and they have a differential, but discernable impact on LC and troop count. But they must be considered in order than things work properly.

Da Babes runs a recursive, so that “AFV” and “Vehicle” Devices fit within both the LC and Troop Count parameters. Rather nicely (patting ourselves on the back) we have completely redone the entire USMC OOB, with every single unit from Division to Bn having its actual troop count (+/- 10% or so), as well as having its actual Load Cost (historical data tables). This took about a month to do. Woof !!

[JWE]

In keeping with concepts described, above, there are certain individual weapons that considerably "pad out" divisions and other units, and when considered in combination with their Support requirements, begin to look like teats on a boar hog. Abstraction begins to make sense, so long as the abstracted Devices and LCUs have a mathematicaly determinable basis in reality.

So, take Lt Tanks fx. Perhaps drop their LC from 12 to 4 (they will then load in cargo as 12) and perhaps think about aggregating them. Maybe make the M3 device equal to 2 M3s and with a LC of perhaps 10. If you do this, it's important not to tweak heavily with the device parameters. Just because it's 2 tanks, doesn't mean the device has twice the penetration. Likely it would have a better anti-soft numeric and in these cases I use the root of the multiplier: 2 tanks get 1.4x the anti-soft value of 1 tank, 3 tanks get 1.7x the anti-soft value of 1 tank, etc..

This needs to be very judiciously applied, and a close look given to the resulting troop count and LCs. Don't forget that AFV devices count towards the AV, so relative AV values have to be taken into account as well; you can't short one nation, without thinking about the others too. And there's a tweaky differential between the opening day/early war stuff and stuff that happened once the cookie cutter got going.

[Kitakami]

Thanks for a very interesting inside look at things I would have never considered

[JWE]

Got a pm asking about IRL numbers.

Yes, we do understand the TO&Es of USMC Tank Bns. 4 Tank Coys, giving 72 M2/M3 tanks at LC of 11, and a Scout Company with 14 M3A1s with LC of 10 evolving to 34 Jeeps in about 6/42.

What this gives (without abstraction), is:

72 AFVs with troop count of 792, plus 14 M3A1s with troop count of 140, and requiring Support of .9x86 = 77 squads, at 12 per squad, equals 924; so the “Bn” has a troop count of 1856; totally sucks against the Atoll troop limit, yeah?

Gonna have to rethink your paradigm and forget about the “IRL” stuff. IRL is nice and pretty, and it makes all your OOBs look nice and pretty, but it just don’t work worth a poop unless you use your pretty little numbers judiciously.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Kitakami
Thanks for a very interesting inside look at things I would have never considered

No worries, Kitakami. Very hesitant about posting because of the trolls out there, but can always be reached by pm. Will always do my best to try and make sense of things for the stout of heart and open of mind.

Ciao. J

[Skyros]

JWE keep posting and ignore the trools. We need your insight.

[chesmart]

These trolls are ruining Witp AE by not letting us discuss how the game works in the open forums

[JWE]

Got a pm from Gregor, more Qs on load costs. Load costs for artillery (Army Weapons, AA Guns, DP Guns, mobile CD Guns) are calculated by adding a percentage function of their action weight (in tons) to crew size and chopping everything off after the decimal. So everything with an action weight 2499lbs or less, is crew size. Everything bigger gets the % adders. Quite fortunately (surprise, surprise) crew size just happens to fall into the Lt, Med, Hy equipment loading scale in Table 6.3.2.3.

So your infantry mortars (81s & such) have crew of 4, no adders, and load up at 1x. Your basic 70-75mm howitzers (and infantry, mountain, and pack pieces) have crews of 6 to 8, no adders, and load at 2x. 75mm Guns begin getting the adder, but for even them and 25pdrs, and 105 howitzers, their crew sizes of 8 to 10 only increase to LCs of 9 to 12, and load at 3x. 155 howitzers have crews of 10 to 12, and are getting pretty big, so the adders increase and they end up from 15 to 17, but still load at 3x. Guns are proportionately more costly, but the basis LC for troop calculations is still just (mostly) crew size, so when combined with Support, you should be able to fit some hard humping 155mm Gun Bns on an Atoll.

This works for Gun devices up to and including 155mm guns and 8" howitzers. Careful crafting of separate Arty Bns allows creation of Bns with troop count in the neighborhood of +/- 15% of actuals. Of course the 75mm/105mm Bns are a tad smaller, while the 155mm Guns/8" Howitzers are a tad bigger, but in the overall scheme of things, they "fit".

When calculating Support, we made the assumption that action weights 2499lbs or less could be "manhandled" so they get ordinary Sup squads. Action weight of 7000lbs and above requires prime movers and therefore gets all MotSup squads. Between 2500 and 6999lbs, it's a monotonically increasing percentage of MotSup.

Ok, that's how it was initially contemplated. Hopefully this shows the basis of things and where some of the minefields are, and will let ya'll play with stuff without falling off the merry-go-round. Will, of course, answer further pms about data calculations, but will not address code.

[JWE]

Because of the nastiness on the main forum, and the desire of people to use mod info to fuel complaints against Henderson Field Designs, will no longer publically post responses to questions when authorized to do so. Will nevertheless respond as before, privately, and the recipient may post any and all portions of a reply, as they see fit.

[Mike Solli]

Hey John, I just want to let you know that I really appreciate all the thought and brain sweat you put into this game.  I don't have to worry about figuring out load costs.  I trust your judgment and calculations.  I can just have a blast in the game wiping my opponent from one end of the map to the other.  We'll, it's only Feb 42 in my PBEM, so I guess I should be wiping my opponent from one end of the map to the other. [:D] We'll see how things look in a couple of years. [:D]

[Mike Solli]

Hey John, I just want to let you know that I really appreciate all the thought and brain sweat you put into this game.  I don't have to worry about figuring out load costs.  I trust your judgment and calculations.  I can just have a blast in the game wiping my opponent from one end of the map to the other.  We'll, it's only Feb 42 in my PBEM, so I guess I should be wiping my opponent from one end of the map to the other. [:D] We'll see how things look in a couple of years. [:D]

[Kitakami]

+1

Besides... those that can... DO. Those that can't... COMPLAIN.

[ChickenOfTheSea]

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

+1

Besides... those that can... DO. Those that can't... COMPLAIN.

+2

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Because of the nastiness on the main forum, and the desire of people to use mod info to fuel complaints against Henderson Field Designs, will no longer publically post responses to questions when authorized to do so. Will nevertheless respond as before, privately, and the recipient may post any and all portions of a reply, as they see fit.

While I totally understand, we now will not benefit from your comments and answers to questions by others. That sucks big time.

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

+1

Besides... those that can... DO. Those that can't... COMPLAIN.

+2

+3