DaBabies Fleet Advance Base Force

[Gunner98]

Playing DaBabies with stacking limits against VH Jap AI.

Just received my 2nd Fleet Advance Base Force and am looking for advice on where to put it: They are massive 13,000 stacking Cost[X(] but with 432 Nav support, 72 Aviation support and 36 Shore Party they help out a lot.

I put the first one into Noumea and have had stacking problems ever since - got me to accelerate things in the Solomons - so not all bad. The problem is that they are too big to put at advance bases like Tulagi which only has an SL of 25K but bigger places (Townsville for instance) have a big enough port that they don't need too much help.

The different levels of Engr support in DaBabies is a great twist, just trying to figure out how best to use them. Any advice from the pros?

B

[vettim89]

That is what JWE would call a Lion. The Port Advance BF is a Cub. Historically the first Lion went to Manus I beleive (Admiralties on AE map). Second one went to Guam IIRC. Noumea should be an unlimited stacking base. Seems odd you are having problems there

[Gunner98]

Thanks - Manus could be a while yet then.

Playing with the Extended map and stacking limit mod - every base has an SL. Makes it interesting, you need to stage your big moves much farther back. You also need to balance your construction engineers with your base forces - having them all there at the same time makes bases bulk out quickly. Historically the USMC units staged our of NZ and not Noumea, probably for this reason I guess - well that's where I put them. Also make all of those USMC defence Bns very useful because you need to pull the assault forces out quickly to make room for engineers, having them sit and prep for the next objective while in a forward base is, well - a waist of space. [;)] Even PH is limited, an SL of 170K sounds big but you can max it out if your not careful.

B

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

That is what JWE would call a Lion. The Port Advance BF is a Cub. Historically the first Lion went to Manus I beleive (Admiralties on AE map). Second one went to Guam IIRC. Noumea should be an unlimited stacking base. Seems odd you are having problems there

When you play with the new stacking limits there are no unlimited bases! [8D]

[CaptBeefheart]

Sounds like this stacking adds a whole new dimension to this game by requiring a lot more long-term logisitical planning. I was thinking my guys weren't getting great R&R between battles like in OZ or Kiwiland as in history (or Russell/Pavuvu--OK, not all rear areas were great).

Cheers,
CC

[ckammp]

Actually, the fact the DaBabes team felt the necessity of adding stacking limits to their mod is a sad commentary on what has become of AE.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Actually, the fact the DaBabes team felt the necessity of adding stacking limits to their mod is a sad commentary on what has become of AE.

I'm not really sure what you mean. First off, the stacking limits are fully supported in the code (added during the Beta). Second, as I understand it stacking limits are one of those things they wanted to code in but simply didn't have resources considering all the other changes. Third, these stacking limits are totally optional, even to the point where you need to load an alternate set of pwhex files.

So, being totally optional, how could they be "a sad commentary on what has become of AE"?

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Actually, the fact the DaBabes team felt the necessity of adding stacking limits to their mod is a sad commentary on what has become of AE.

I'm not really sure what you mean. First off, the stacking limits are fully supported in the code (added during the Beta). Second, as I understand it stacking limits are one of those things they wanted to code in but simply didn't have resources considering all the other changes. Third, these stacking limits are totally optional, even to the point where you need to load an alternate set of pwhex files.

So, being totally optional, how could they be "a sad commentary on what has become of AE"?

Stacking limits were added for one reason only - to curb some of the rampant abuses of the game code which are now commonplace in AE.

When AE first came out, it was the best historical simulation of WWII in the Pacific available. Today, thanks to the alt-history, anything-goes mob that controls this forum and the future development of AE, the game is a free-for-all between two equal teams, on called "Japan" and one called "Allies". It bears less resemblance to real history than does the movie "Pearl Harbor", and is even less playable than that movie is watchable.

And no, stacking limits are not in any of the beta patches, it is a DaBabes option only.

Speaking of options, it is the player's option to decide how many LCUs are in a hex. No one is forced to create huge mega-stacks; so, again, why are code-changing "options" like stacking limits necessary?

[witpqs]

No one forces players to stack high. And no one forces anyone to use stacking limits. You ask why stacking limits are "necessary" but also acknowledge that stacking limits are optional.

Should stacking limits on airfields be removed just because nothing forces players to over-stack airfields? No, because it was explained that players are expected to over-stack airfields at various times and the limits provide the operational penalties for doing so. Likewise with ground stacking at bases that was introduced with the original release. Nothing forces players to over-stack a small island, and nothing forces a player to invade that small island with forces above the stacking-limit. But just like in real life the commanders had the freedom to do that and pay the price it took to do it, the players are given the option to do that and the limits provide the operational penalties for doing so.

It's the same with the new, optional, stacking limits outside of bases. If you choose to stack over the limits then you pay the operational penalty.

But the real thing is that the stacking limits are not even built into the scenarios themselves. They are in a separate set of pwhex files. If the game (Beta releases past a certain version) sees the stacking limits in the pwhex files installed, it uses them. If it doesn't see them, it doesn't use them. So you can play any scenario with or without the optional stacking limits. They don't even require the newer, optional expanded map as there is a version of the modified pwhex files for the standard map.

The real issue you seem to have is:

...so, again, why are code-changing "options" like stacking limits necessary?

First the "code-changing" complaint. It's an option. What is so offensive to you about other people having options for them to choose to use or not?

Why are stacking limits necessary? Nothing is necessary. You and your opponent can agree on anything you want instead, or not - your choice. And that doesn't affect which scenario you choose, because the stacking limits are not built into the scenario, they are in the pwhex files.

I'm not going to get into defending why some players want to use things like stacking limits.

The stuff about an alt-history mob controlling both this forum and future AE development is so utterly without foundation in fact that it's wacko and I won't comment further on it.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

No one forces players to stack high. And no one forces anyone to use stacking limits. You ask why stacking limits are "necessary" but also acknowledge that stacking limits are optional.

Should stacking limits on airfields be removed just because nothing forces players to over-stack airfields? No, because it was explained that players are expected to over-stack airfields at various times and the limits provide the operational penalties for doing so. Likewise with ground stacking at bases that was introduced with the original release. Nothing forces players to over-stack a small island, and nothing forces a player to invade that small island with forces above the stacking-limit. But just like in real life the commanders had the freedom to do that and pay the price it took to do it, the players are given the option to do that and the limits provide the operational penalties for doing so.

It's the same with the new, optional, stacking limits outside of bases. If you choose to stack over the limits then you pay the operational penalty.

But the real thing is that the stacking limits are not even built into the scenarios themselves. They are in a separate set of pwhex files. If the game (Beta releases past a certain version) sees the stacking limits in the pwhex files installed, it uses them. If it doesn't see them, it doesn't use them. So you can play any scenario with or without the optional stacking limits. They don't even require the newer, optional expanded map as there is a version of the modified pwhex files for the standard map.

The real issue you seem to have is:

...so, again, why are code-changing "options" like stacking limits necessary?

First the "code-changing" complaint. It's an option. What is so offensive to you about other people having options for them to choose to use or not?

Why are stacking limits necessary? Nothing is necessary. You and your opponent can agree on anything you want instead, or not - your choice. And that doesn't affect which scenario you choose, because the stacking limits are not built into the scenario, they are in the pwhex files.

I'm not going to get into defending why some players want to use things like stacking limits.

The stuff about an alt-history mob controlling both this forum and future AE development is so utterly without foundation in fact that it's wacko and I won't comment further on it.

The issue is that no one forces players to create huge mega-stacks of LCUs, they do it anyway.
And then the player moves his mega-stack around, attempting to crush anything in his way. So his opponent creates his own mega-stack, and they fight it out.
And it creates, of course, combat results that are nothing like historical results, and which neither player agrees with; in short it breaks the code.
However, rather than admit it was their fault for creating the a-historical mega-stacks, the players come running to the forum, loudly crying that "The game is borked, and someone should do something about it!"
And then the code is obliging changed to appease the whiners, often immediately and with no consideration for any long-term effects.

It was to prevent these situations that DaBabes was forced to include stacking limits; and it's a pretty sad situation when a mod has to include limits to prevent selfish players from abusing the game.

As for the alt-history, anything-goes mob - it is fairly obvious who controls what is put out in the beta patches.

[jeffk3510]

ckammp-

If you dont like, don't play it.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ckammp-

If you dont like, don't play it.

I can't play it, due to too many changes introduced; changes introduced not in the attempt to improve the game, but simply to pander to the loudest whiners in the forum.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

The issue is that no one forces players to create huge mega-stacks of LCUs, they do it anyway.
And then the player moves his mega-stack around, attempting to crush anything in his way. So his opponent creates his own mega-stack, and they fight it out.
And it creates, of course, combat results that are nothing like historical results, and which neither player agrees with; in short it breaks the code.
However, rather than admit it was their fault for creating the a-historical mega-stacks, the players come running to the forum, loudly crying that "The game is borked, and someone should do something about it!"
And then the code is obliging changed to appease the whiners, often immediately and with no consideration for any long-term effects.

It was to prevent these situations that DaBabes was forced to include stacking limits; and it's a pretty sad situation when a mod has to include limits to prevent selfish players from abusing the game.

As for the alt-history, anything-goes mob - it is fairly obvious who controls what is put out in the beta patches.

DaBabes was not "forced" to include stacking limits, nor anything else. That claim is pretty bizarre.

[tocaff]

Not all of the loudest whiners get what they want.  [;)]

If the game was purely a reenactment of history then the outcomes of battles wouldn't be in doubt.  That sounds pretty boring to me.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ckammp-

If you dont like, don't play it.

I can't play it, due to too many changes introduced; changes introduced not in the attempt to improve the game, but simply to pander to the loudest whiners in the forum.

Some examples maybe ?

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: ckammp

The issue is that no one forces players to create huge mega-stacks of LCUs, they do it anyway.
And then the player moves his mega-stack around, attempting to crush anything in his way. So his opponent creates his own mega-stack, and they fight it out.
And it creates, of course, combat results that are nothing like historical results, and which neither player agrees with; in short it breaks the code.
However, rather than admit it was their fault for creating the a-historical mega-stacks, the players come running to the forum, loudly crying that "The game is borked, and someone should do something about it!"
And then the code is obliging changed to appease the whiners, often immediately and with no consideration for any long-term effects.

It was to prevent these situations that DaBabes was forced to include stacking limits; and it's a pretty sad situation when a mod has to include limits to prevent selfish players from abusing the game.

As for the alt-history, anything-goes mob - it is fairly obvious who controls what is put out in the beta patches.

DaBabes was not "forced" to include stacking limits, nor anything else. That claim is pretty bizarre.

Let me try one more time:

Players who create mega-stacks of LCUs are exploiting the game engine, and causing a-historical combat results.

Example: Putting 7 Divisions in a stack, then merrily marching overland from Buna to Port Moresby, taking the base, and marching back, all within two weeks,and without loss, is a gamey tactic.

To prevent such gamey exploits, DaBabes included stacking limits.

What is sad is that stacking limits are unnecessary, if only players didn't cheat in the first place.

What is sadder is the unwillingness of the devs to call players out on their gamey tactics, but instead change the code to allow such play.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ckammp-

If you dont like, don't play it.

I can't play it, due to too many changes introduced; changes introduced not in the attempt to improve the game, but simply to pander to the loudest whiners in the forum.

Some examples maybe ?

Any of the recent beta patches; nothing but immediate code changes to appease rader & greyjoy and their followers.
Of course, they were responsible for getting michaelm that brand new computer, wasn't that such a thoughtful gesture.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Not all of the loudest whiners get what they want.  [;)]

If the game was purely a reenactment of history then the outcomes of battles wouldn't be in doubt.  That sounds pretty boring to me.

There is a big difference between playing out WWII exactly as it happened, and playing AE in a historical manner. The outcome of battles will be different, but the overall outcome should be the same as in real life - a defeat for Japan, and a bad one at that. With the code changes demanded by the whiners, AE is evolvong into an even match where either side could win, all in the name of fun. No thanks.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Let me try one more time:

Players who create mega-stacks of LCUs are exploiting the game engine, and causing a-historical combat results.

Example: Putting 7 Divisions in a stack, then merrily marching overland from Buna to Port Moresby, taking the base, and marching back, all within two weeks,and without loss, is a gamey tactic.

To prevent such gamey exploits, DaBabes included stacking limits.

What is sad is that stacking limits are unnecessary, if only players didn't cheat in the first place.

What is sadder is the unwillingness of the devs to call players out on their gamey tactics, but instead change the code to allow such play.

I know you are trying but you are still not getting it. Computer games free people from using paper and pencil for everything or attempting to keep everything in their heads.

What exactly is enough troops in this particular hex, considering terrain, road net, and other factors?
How do you count the troops? Just units (but they vary in size)?

Stacking is complex enough that simple house rules would be just as prone to problems as no HR. Complex house rules - let the computer do the math instead. (I said I wouldn't get into defending why some players might want to use things like stacking limits, but I just did give one very important reason. I won't go back and forth on that any further.)

For you, do what you want to do.

But you make another claim:

What is sadder is the unwillingness of the devs to call players out on their gamey tactics, but instead change the code to allow such play.

The code allows a much better approximation of real life possibilities than your notion of player self limits. Why? Both because it calculates much more accurately and does it all the time and because it allows for the exceptions to the norm with accompanying penalties. Just like in real life sometimes commanders decided to pay the piper and deal with what we would call 'over-stacking' of airfields or areas of ground.

If you are implying that the stacking limits allow players to use mega-stacks willy nilly, then try it and see for yourself. You will find that violations of the stacking limits use up extra supply. Mega-stacks will act as black holes and suck up supply from the surrounding universe.

The most significant issue here is that these optional stacking limits have no effect on you, and yet you seem to castigate players who might want to use them as a competitive referee. You say that players who aren't self limiting troops in a hex are "cheating". Who are they cheating? Certainly not you. Certainly not their opponent, or they would have some house rule on it. Even better, they might be using the optional stacking limits and letting the computer keep track of things and make a far more accurate accounting than any house rule could ever do.

You make reference to this and other (unspecified) changes that "pander" to whiners. This example (stacking-limits) is clearly debunked by the facts. It is an optional change that makes the game better and more historical. If you have any legitimate examples, that list certainly does not include stacking limits.

[vettim89]

I think the point that ckammp is trying to make is that some players are better at exploiting the game systems than others. I would never go so far as to call such players "Cheaters". They play the game as just that: a game. To a certain extent, he is correct about stacking limits. Their optional implementation is to to put a mechanism in place to offer a historical reality check about the difficulties of supporting huge numbers of troops in difficult terrain. While it may be true that some players will install the changed pwhex file to provide an addition layer of historocity, others willl install them to prevent the misuse of the game system he describes.

As to the Devs pandering to certain voices, I think that rings hollow. As has been pointed out time and again, the Dev Team is made up of people kind enough to volunteer their time. I think throwing darts at the people who made AE possible is not only uncalled for but unreasonable. Most of us can probably come up with a thing or two that we would like to see addressed. The modders only have so much time to put into the game as the all have RL jobs, families, and other concerns. Just because a patch addresses issues one person thinks is not a priority while ignoring what that same person beleives is an important issue does not imply bias.

There are numerous Mods already available for AE and I think that number will continue to grow with time. DBB is an amazing extension which makes AE all that it can be. The stacking limits are just another cool addition but, as has been pointed out already, if you don't like it don't play with the altered pwhex installed