Australian OOB in Da Babes

[Gridley380]

In the latest version of Da Babes I see the Aussies can no longer form divisions; curious as to why this change from stock was made?

Great mod, BTW!

[US87891]

Because we prefer to focus on the war in the "Pacific" aspect of the game. Australia's operational space does not require 'Divisions'. Australian divisions were constantly changing; they might have 2, 3 or 4 brigades under command, and an equally variable amount of arty, so how to deal with that? We just gave some DivHQs and a bunch of brigades that can come and go as they please. This is a much more flexible arrangement for Australia's wartime tasks; both at home, and in her 'out-deployed' operational area.

Used correctly, a DivHQ, 3 brigades and integral Div Arty Bns will stand up to a 'division' stack. The 'a div beats 3 rgts every time' stuff is urban legend and simply not true. Michaelm has been very good about tweaking the combat algorithm and casualty calculations, to make them more adaptively realistic. Mathematically valid statistical analysis shows a 3% differential in casualty rates between a fully formed division and a division consisting of constituent units, when the aggregates are rationally related. Given the code algorithm, this is exactly what would be expected, mathematically.

Since there is simply no difference, why not let Aus/NZ retain the operational flexibility they actually enjoyed?

Matt

[witpqs]

No idea what arduous tweezers work it took for Michael to tweak those particular innards just the right way, but that was a great change he made. I can verify that in practice it is working quite well. I have no fear at all of using a division as the three regiments and only feel compelled to combine them to get TOE upgrades (talking a ~5 years old version of Babes for a game in progress). In March '45 I just now combined original regiments of one USMC division for that reason only.

Edit to add: I am sure any TOE upgrades in newer scenarios applies at the appropriate org levels. Was just citing experience with the one we are running.

[US87891]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Edit to add: I am sure any TOE upgrades in newer scenarios applies at the appropriate org levels. Was just citing experience with the one we are running.

Yes, indeed. A good point. In our scenarios, TOE upgrades are tagged to the highest echelon level of a unit's "parent". Where Br/Rgt is highest echelon for an LCU, TOE upgrades happen with respect to those particular echelons. The changing configurations of individual brigade structures is another reason we chose to represent Australian forces in this manner.[:)]

Matt

[Yaab]

I don't mind both arragnements (div/non-div), but when you divide divisions into generic A/B/C regiments it breaks immersion, at least for me. Now, if USA 41st Infantry Division could be broken down into 81st and 82nd Inf Regiments and 86th Arty Regiment, that would be perfect. Right now I mostly don't divide divisions just to keep their historical "flavor" names.

[mussey]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I don't mind both arragnements (div/non-div), but when you divide divisions into generic A/B/C regiments it breaks immersion, at least for me. Now, if USA 41st Infantry Division could be broken down into 81st and 82nd Inf Regiments and 86th Arty Regiment, that would be perfect. Right now I mostly don't divide divisions just to keep their historical "flavor" names.

I'm the opposite. I like the A/B/C because it's easier to see with my tired eyes. I'm curious how many component units are made w/I a div besides the inf/art/eng? Is there a recon bn.? Etc?

[Gridley380]

Good answers, thanks!