Matrix Games Forums

One new feature is a smoother calculation of AFV Load Cost and armor. Originally, game Load Costs for AFV/Vehicles was their combat weight. This is problematic in terms of unit troop count for places like Atolls. Your average M4 Tank Bn will have about 60 AFVs, so troop count is about 1380 against an actual of 750. But the unit also needs Sup, which adds another 810 troops, so the unit actually counts out as 2190 (about 3x actual count), making it difficult to put a Combat Regt, a Tk Bn, and an Arty Bn onto an Atoll, without over-stacking.

There is no real reason to set AFV LCs to their combat weight. LC is a game abstraction that has implications for both loading and troop count – occasionally, mutually exclusive. Ship load factors automatically multiply all AFV and Vehicle LCs by 3 to calculate their “effective” load costs, so a useful algorithm can be devised that gives a more reasonable troop count, but results in an “effective” load cost approximately equal to the device’s actual combat weight. Weight is a consideration, of course, but in loading ships, footprint is of equal concern. For example, a GMC truck takes up as much hold space as a Sherman, and much more than a Stuart, although it weighs significantly less. Accordingly, we developed load cost values that are a mix of combat weight, footprint, and crew size, to give things more of a central tendency.

As to AFV armor, we had already redone penetration values of AT weapons according to an algorithm. It made sense to redo the armor values according to a similar algorithm. AFVs now have armor values that are calculated on the basis of an aspect vs area ratio. It no longer depends on the largest value of frontal or glacis plate. You get a chance to hit where the armor is thinner and the armor value takes this into account. Please understand this is an abstraction, not Squad Leader, so there is no front/side/rear shot, or M-kill or K-kill; just a simple collective abstraction that results in disablement or destruction. Note: disabled AFVs will require "Support" squads to get operational again but, as explained further, below, these have been "Babies R Us'd" to make it hard.

Artillery load cost is already modeled to include the prime-movers, so there is no need for separate halftracks, tractors, trucks, and the like. Although a certain amount of ammunition was integral, this is subsumed into supply and ammo carriers are subsumed into a certain number of integral Motorized Support squads (which are vehicles, in the abstract).

Nor is there any real reason to include large amounts of intrinsic Sup/MotSup squads in the physical makeup of certain unit types. So, we have broken out a proportion of Sup/MotSup into support LCUs. These have no assault value and provide no benefits for units outside a friendly base hex. Friendly bases thus become of major importance, as does the swift capture of enemy bases, so as to allow support forces to set up and operate. This also provides for more realistic combat casualty distributions and more adequately models the swift depletion of a unit’s power in periods of intense combat. It makes the necessity of unit rotation and withdrawal of fought-out units for R&R quite self-evident.

One of the reasons that Babes scenarios don’t work too well with the AI is that the internal AI cheats by looking at the unit “type’. If the “type” = 10, i.e., Eng unit, and suffix is 109, i.e., Base Force, then some magic things can auto-magically happen that we don’t want. Similarly, other units with other specific squad types can be used by the AI for its own purposes.

In a nominal GC game, the internal AI can identify any unit with Av or Nav Support and use that unit to auto-magically build and support airfields beyond the wildest dreams of avarice. An animal transport LCU, with 7 mules and one single Aviation Support squad entry (EVEN THOUGH IT IS EMPTY) is enough to turn that LCU into sufficient support for goddam LA.

This is such utter bullshit that we did away with that crap altogether. You will not find any LCU ‘typed’ as a Base Force in these scenarios. Some will be “named” such, but not “typed’ as such.

ORIGINAL: Symon

Nor is there any real reason to include large amounts of intrinsic Sup/MotSup squads in the physical makeup of certain unit types. So, we have broken out a proportion of Sup/MotSup into support LCUs. These have no assault value and provide no benefits for units outside a friendly base hex. Friendly bases thus become of major importance, as does the swift capture of enemy bases, so as to allow support forces to set up and operate. This also provides for more realistic combat casualty distributions and more adequately models the swift depletion of a unit’s power in periods of intense combat. It makes the necessity of unit rotation and withdrawal of fought-out units for R&R quite self-evident.

This is quite a major change to the ground combat model.

While I like the sound of it, I do have some concerns:

- Impact this might have on units defending a base hex versus attacking units. The defenders are getting the full benifit of support, the attackers are getting none.
- Impact this will have on areas where bases are quite spread out. I can't see a IJA tank regiment falling apart in the middle of Manchuria just because they're not in a base hex, nor an American division accuring disruption and fatigue for marching 46 miles south from San Francisco.
- Does it apply to all support squad types, or are we getting a specific type of support squad that only works in bases?

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Symon
[...] So, we have broken out a proportion of Sup/MotSup into support LCUs.[...]

- Impact this might have on units defending a base hex versus attacking units. The defenders are getting the full benifit of support, the attackers are getting none.
- Impact this will have on areas where bases are quite spread out. I can't see a IJA tank regiment falling apart in the middle of Manchuria just because they're not in a base hex, nor an American division accuring disruption and fatigue for marching 46 miles south from San Francisco.
- Does it apply to all support squad types, or are we getting a specific type of support squad that only works in bases?

The term proportion implies, well, proportion. Which is not equal to 'all'.

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Symon
[...] So, we have broken out a proportion of Sup/MotSup into support LCUs.[...]

- Impact this might have on units defending a base hex versus attacking units. The defenders are getting the full benifit of support, the attackers are getting none.
- Impact this will have on areas where bases are quite spread out. I can't see a IJA tank regiment falling apart in the middle of Manchuria just because they're not in a base hex, nor an American division accuring disruption and fatigue for marching 46 miles south from San Francisco.
- Does it apply to all support squad types, or are we getting a specific type of support squad that only works in bases?

The term proportion implies, well, proportion. Which is not equal to 'all'.

So what's the proportionof support being split off then?

ORIGINAL: Symon

Nor is there any real reason to include large amounts of intrinsic Sup/MotSup squads in the physical makeup of certain unit types. So, we have broken out a proportion of Sup/MotSup into support LCUs. These have no assault value and provide no benefits for units outside a friendly base hex. Friendly bases thus become of major importance, as does the swift capture of enemy bases, so as to allow support forces to set up and operate. This also provides for more realistic combat casualty distributions and more adequately models the swift depletion of a unit’s power in periods of intense combat. It makes the necessity of unit rotation and withdrawal of fought-out units for R&R quite self-evident.

Wouldn't they still provide that 10% defensive boost to adjusted AV at the conclusion of battle? Obviously not of value to the attacker but to a defender who in your grainy scenarios might be struggling to round up some actual positive assault value (I'm thinking of cooks and drivers in a all hands to the pump situation) and be fighting in a SL hex, they might be of some value.

Alfred

You nailed it pretty well, Baron.

Babes does proportionality already, with intrinsic support nominally at 70-75% for the Japanese and 80-85% for the Allies: the shortage is provided by HQs and Base Forces. The new paradigm applies a spread of proportional intrinsic support for various unit types and aggregates the shortfall into “support” units. Div-HQ becomes a real Div-HQ, with some combat/security capability, but functions more as command and control.

Two reasons for this new breakout: first is how the game engine handles ‘lists of lists’ and ‘who gets whacked’ and how can one make combat results model reality more closely. Most LCUs have Sup as their largest number of devices, so Sup takes disproportionate casualties. In reality, after a hard week or two at the office, a typical division will be reduced to its div-arty, QM Bns, and perhaps the equivalent of an infantry regiment or so. Infantry suffers 30-40% casualties for every 2-3 weeks of continuous combat. The new paradigm comes closer to modeling the actual combat degradation of a division level aggregate in terms of its component devices.

The second is application of combat power. When assaulting an atoll, for example, one does not put the heavy equipment workshops ashore in the first wave. The first wave is as powerful as it can be and, yes, one throws tank Bns ashore to either win or die. There is no room for combat irrelevant devices, especially when there are extreme troop stacking limitations. You want every device to be combat effective. Let the defenders worry about support. Once you capture the atoll, you can unload the trains, and a poopload of excess supply, and start thinking about taking the depleted units home for a long period of R&R. Sound familiar ?

An ancillary feature of all this is that a player needs to be concerned about Op Modes and Posture. I could go-on about this, but sometimes folks need to find out some things for themselves; although I will give a hint. There’s a reason there’s different Op Modes: Arty Bombards (Aviation Engineer Brigades, don’t); Infantry Assaults (Coast Defense AA units, don’t); Armor/Cav units may Assault or be in Reserve; Support units shouldn’t be there in the first place.

Tempo has become way more real and depends on the very same factors that IRL tempo depended on. As we get these scenarios up and going, we’ll be doing lots of hints and tricks and bears, Oh My !! A lot of the concepts are applicable to Babes GC play.

Hi John,

Just one silly question... Wouldn't this rationalization of unit structures (this is what it is all about, no?) actually help a scripted AI like the one AE uses? Those would have to be new scripts, obviously, but wouldn't improvements in Babes make them more effective?

Francois

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Wouldn't they still provide that 10% defensive boost to adjusted AV at the conclusion of battle? Obviously not of value to the attacker but to a defender who in your grainy scenarios might be struggling to round up some actual positive assault value (I'm thinking of cooks and drivers in a all hands to the pump situation) and be fighting in a SL hex, they might be of some value.

Alfred

That is exactly the kind of perceptive comment I have come to expect from you.

Yes, they would. One of the beauties of the paradigm is that "Sup" units can have whatever morale and experience the scenario feels is warranted. Iwo Jima had a bunch of technically "Sup" units and some "Construction" units in play for the invasion. They may not add to the Japanese Assault Value (duh !) but the can shoot and defend quite well, as they did IRL.

This is a perfect example, since Iwo is dinky and won't support an Army Corps. Japan needs to fill it to capacity with troops and that requires a certain amount of combat disadvantaged "Sup". Because of the stacking thing, the US can't invade with the 3rd Army, so it has to go with what it had: a phased deployment of Regiments. It can, if properly organized, put 6000+ serious combat troops ashore to face 6000 Japanese that include a percentage of combat disadvantaged troops. Can you say "It's a wonderful day in the neighborhood, a wonderful day for a neighbor, would you be mine?"

We,ve been doing this for several years. It does work, if you understand the paradigm. I kinda think you get it, and it's for folks like you that we offer this.

ORIGINAL: fcharton
Hi John,

Just one silly question... Wouldn't this rationalization of unit structures (this is what it is all about, no?) actually help a scripted AI like the one AE uses? Those would have to be new scripts, obviously, but wouldn't improvements in Babes make them more effective?

Francois

No, Francois, not really.

Perhaps, if someone were to take the time to redo an AI, but that is not an option. The AI is not just Andy's scripts, it is also a set of embedded routines, throughout the entire engine, that looks at things and does things depending on "data values" that are totally independent of Andy's scripts. The internal engine AI calls are one of the major reasons we took Babes to a different paradigm with respect to LCU "Types".

There's a lot going on under the hood that's not particularly bright. We are trying our best to make things better, given our knowledge of what the engine is doing.

Ciao. John

Do you know what the first one or two short scenarios will be?? Is something like the conquest of Luzon a possiblilty or is that too large?? Both 41/42 and 44 versions.

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
Do you know what the first one or two short scenarios will be?? Is something like the conquest of Luzon a possiblilty or is that too large?? Both 41/42 and 44 versions.

The first scenario is Operation SF. It is in two parts because it was bifurcated By Midway. The first part is Operation MO, that folds into the Battle of the Coral Sea, if you want. The second part is the Operational Plan of Op-SF, of IJGHQ. the actual operational orders, and the actual identified units as they existed at the time.

We reserve the right to play IJGHQ and maybe send some reinforcements to appropriate places.

Hootz gazottiez. JWE

John, I know what you wrote about DaBabes GC and such, but all those small scenarios might well pose as sandbox scenarios for a later transfer into a full campain.

We can also tweak the devices a bit more to be more grainy with infantry and machine gun squads. One of the gals in California did a wonderful analysis of anti-armor capability of the various infantry weapons, and it was an eye popper !

The T-97 ATR penetrates 30mm at 250 yards
The Boys ATR penetrates 21mm at 250 yards (32 at 100, 19 at 500)
The .50cal M2 penetrates 25mm at 250 yards (27 at 100, 23 at 500)
The .30cal M1917/19 penetrates 9mm at 250 yards (11 at 100, 6 at 500)
The T-92 7.7x58 SRAP penetrates 6mm at 250 yards (5.76mm at 250m); ~3.3k joules muzzle energy
The T-96 6.6x50 SRAP penetrates 4mm at 250 yards (4.27mm at 250m); ~2.4k joules muzzle energy
All pen values are for normal incidence against hardened steel plate.

Both the .30 and .50 are firing M2 AP, at muzzle energies of 4k and 16.8k Joules, respectively. Even .50cal M2 ball would penetrate 20mm at 100 yards, and .30cal ball would penetrate 8mm at 100 yards. Over 20% of 30.06, and over 50% of .50 ammunition produced was M2 AP. Machine gunners would always have M2 AP in their belts, along with ball, tracer, incendiary, and AP-incendiary, from day one. The BAR man would always have a couple mags of M2 AP just in case.

So early war US infantry squads get anti-armor of 9. The M1917 MMG squads get anti-armor of 9. The M2 HMG squads get anti-armor of 25. And that obtains until February 1943, when the improved M1A1 bazooka firing the M6A1 rocket became generally available.

Japan had the most powerful ATR of the Pacific Theater, but it was issued in very small numbers; small enough that it makes sense to include AT Inf Squads in the TO&Es; in a manner similar to ATGs, but as “squads” so they can participate in assault value calculations. Japanese infantry weapons did not have much AP capability. Accordingly, early war Japanese infantry squad anti-armor ratings of 5 are perfectly reasonable.

This feature may well have implications for device characterists in GC games. [8D] More to come. J

Interesting data. Thanks for sharing.

Ok, we’re getting right down to the real nitty gritty. You might want to think of it as a short-map scenario toolbox. We have a different file setup for devices. We’re using all the empty/unused/duplicate slots and have aggregated the different Nations into their own slot space. There’s lots of room within each slot group to add things if modders are so inclined.

This lets us make devices that are specific to a Nation, with their own specs, time frames, build rates, upgrade ladders, pools, etc.. So, Dutch and PI forces don’t upgrade or reinforce, and OZ and NZ start off with what they got, and get new stuff when they did. No more upgrading/using USA or Brit weapon devices with their build rates/pools.

Dutch are now done – in slot range 600-6??. There’s tons of squads: KNIL Inf, KNIL LS, KNIZ Marnier, Statwacht, Landwacht, Indish Militie, Cav (H) and Cav Recce, Sappers and Field Eng.

Dutch artillery is based on the actual guns used, and the specs correspond. Same with AT and AA guns. Armor, in general is on a new paradigm, and the Dutch devices follow that.

Anything with a motor is NO LONGER an AFV; one does not do assaults with scout cars. So the distinction between AFV and simple Vehicle is broadened. S/C, APC, some A/C are now Vehicles. They can shoot very well, but they do not assault. Some of the smaller ones have two device versions: the nominal version and the 2x version. This is to limit the disproportionate AV effect that some Lt AFVs would have given their greater numbers. It also helps reduce the tendency of gamey players to fly armoured divisions from place to place.

Engineers follow the paradigm. For the Dutch, their combat eng equivalent are their sappers. There ain’t a lot of them. Most are Fld Engs good for building, repairing, such like, but do NOT play the “blow the bunker” game.

Most of this is due to Mike Osterhaut and his ability to be Dutch, when it suits him. Information came from S. Bojerud, H. Velemans, L. Klemen, J. Van Dulm, G. Weijers, N. Van Vonno, G. De Jong, and many others.

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
John, I know what you wrote about DaBabes GC and such, but all those small scenarios might well pose as sandbox scenarios for a later transfer into a full campain.

Nope, my friend, never happen. Will be fabulous for sandbox, or H2H, or HotSeat, or PBEM, Butt ... What we are doing is totally outside the AI Script paradigm.

Ciao, JWE [8D]

We’re doing a few different things for the Op SF Scen, that will be back-filled to the Babes Guadalcanal, Philippines, and DEI Conquest scenarios. We reorganized and expanded the Devices section so that each Nation will have its own group of devices in its own slot section. There will obviously be many duplications, but we’ll try to put a national identifier in front of each of the highly duplicated devices (3’ mortars, MG sections, guns, howitzers, bears, oh my!).

This allows for each nation to have its own build rates and pools, or sometimes ‘no’ build rates. This also allows for specific device reinforcement by specific convoys. Some of these convoys are ‘special’ convoys that appear, auto disband, and dump cargo into specific pools. Certain other convoys will have to sail to their destination ports and manually disband their cargo.

This also helps build more accurate TO&Es for certain nations, thereby allowing construction of more accurate OOBs, depending on the scenario time frame. There are quite a few extras in the Device and TOE boxes. They include lots of things that existed but were used for training, or kept in the armories as obsolete, but which could be operationally used in an emergency. Think of it as a scenario development tool box.

So far, we have completed the US Army, Navy, Marine Corps, the Dutch KNI Leger, Militie, the Australian AIF, CMF, and AMF, the NZTF, NZEF, and the Philippine Army and Constabulary.

Think it should be a lot of fun.

BTW, and just for grins, there’s a lot of Aus armoured units floating around (mostly at Puckapunyal), but they have a mix of mostly carriers and a couple Vickers and some Marmon Harrington CTLS tankettes until April 1942, when the first Stuarts and Lees began arriving. Their “tanks” are “Vehicles”, not “AFVs”, so their assault values utterly suck. These units start getting real tank deliveries in April 1942, but one must be aware of how many arrive, when they arrive, and determine just which units will receive the bounty.

This is important, because only a very few units became ‘deployable’ and some of them eventually get the Matildas. There’s 4 separate TOE flows and it’s important to know just who is in which one. If Japan invades Australia (possible in two of the scenarios) a player will be very hard pressed to allocate scarce tank devices to appropriate operational units.