Matrix Games Forums

After a pause of three years, I'm, again, thinking of starting a new WitP-AE grand campaign PBeM.

Last time, I played using DBB-B with the extended map.

Now, I'm toying with the idea of using DBB-C but I'd like to know more about the ideas behind this mod, especially for what concerns the differences between it and DBB-B.
I tried to do a search in this forum, but I didn't succeed in finding the answer I was looking for.
So, here I am. I beg your pardon, in case I'm resurrecting something that was already discussed ad nauseam before.

Yes, I know that DBB-C, basically, reduces cargo capacity of almost all transports by 30% and decreases the endurance of some ships, but I'd like to know more about the rationale behind these design decisions.

Two possible answers come to my mind:

- Since the operational tempo of most campaigns is way too fast, mainly because of the experience gained in repeated games and the tendency to over-think and over-optimize every single move, the modders simply decided to made naval transport less efficient and more short legged, just to force a slower pace on the players.

OR

- Since the game doesn't track some types of supply and matériel that actually had to be shipped around, the overall logistical efficiency of a given transport ship is clearly too high and one has to "downgrade" the net transport capacity of the average ship, just to account for the aforementioned issue. Moreover, the endurances of many lesser transports in the database were unrealistically high, so the modders simply cut them back to their historically accurate values.

Now, while I may totally agree with the latter approach, I admit I'm not too fond of the philosophy behind the first. Thus I'd like to know which of the two was the actual rationale behind DBB-C before making my choice about which of the two mods I shall use in my future PBeM.

Regards,

Amedeo

P.S. Bonus question: I'm also considering the use of the "New Asian Roads" mod with the extended map. What is the consensus about this mod? Again, does it reflect a more accurate depiction of the actual capabilities of the historical road network?

Probably both. From the DBB page: "The C scenario set has been developed for the express purpose of reducing operational tempo and straining transport capability to limits that correspond more closely to those experienced by the historical combatants."

Re the "New Asian Roads" aka "gnarly roads" . I don't know if there is a consensus, but it feels odd that in the stock scenarios the road network in Asia is on a par with the road network in the USA. I like the "gnarly roads" and use the concept extensively in my mod.

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Probably both. From the DBB page: "The C scenario set has been developed for the express purpose of reducing operational tempo and straining transport capability to limits that correspond more closely to those experienced by the historical combatants."

+1

It might even reflect certain kinds of "wastage" without changing the game code.

"What? Spam and fruit cocktail, AGAIN!"
"You ordered the wrong part, what am I going to do with it, use it as a boat anchor?

On PT 109 and other units, the alcohol for the torpedoes was diverted for other uses. Once the brass found out about it, there was a poison added. So a still would be made to distill the alcohol so it could still be consumed.

Simple and rampant theft as well.

Damage to goods and supplies. The AVG was supposed to have 100 P-40s but one was damaged beyond repair when unloading the ship so it was used for parts.

I was disappointed with the gnarly Asian roads mod as all it seemed to do was eliminate the secondary roads that inherently run in every direction through the cultivated terrain in China.

I did not see any reduction in road capabilities anywhere else.

Was I overlooking something in that mod?

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Probably both.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

It might even reflect certain kinds of "wastage" without changing the game code.

Thanks to you both for taking the time to give your opinions on the issue. And thanks also to PaxMondo for chiming in. Thanks also for the PT 109 related anecdote, didn't know about this story.
Well, it seems I'll have to guess by myself towards which side does the DBB-C lean more. [:)]

BTW, LST, I also considered using your own mod, but I'm afraid it isn't still as polished and playtested as you'd like it to be.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Was I overlooking something in that mod?

Didn't they also remove a couple railroad bridges in China?

DBB C reduced the ship cargo capacity, but it also reduced device load costs, thus the only thing that got really reduced is the amount of cargo/res/fuel that can be loaded into xAKs . Obviously, ths will not reduce the operational tempo, since the tempo is linked to the Allied phenomenon of universal supply i.e any Allied unit can use supplies created in any Allied territory.

EDIT: MY search-fu powers returned! Look here:

tm.asp?m=4041216

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I was disappointed with the gnarly Asian roads mod as all it seemed to do was eliminate the secondary roads that inherently run in every direction through the cultivated terrain in China.

I did not see any reduction in road capabilities anywhere else.

Was I overlooking something in that mod?

I am playing the Asian roads, and I am curious too about the overall impact. My understanding is 90% in agreement with yours, Hans, with the 10% simply being too soon to know if I am disappointed or not yet.

ORIGINAL: Yaab

DBB C reduced the ship cargo capacity, but it also reduced device load costs, thus the only thing that got really reduced is the amount of cargo/res/fuel that can be loaded into xAKs . Obviously, ths will not reduce the operational tempo, since the tempo is linked to the Allied phenomenon of universal supply i.e any Allied unit can use supplies created in any Allied territory.

EDIT: MY search-fu powers returned! Look here:

tm.asp?m=4041216

It does reduce the Allies tempo, in practice.

ORIGINAL: Yaab

DBB C reduced the ship cargo capacity, but it also reduced device load costs, thus the only thing that got really reduced is the amount of cargo/res/fuel that can be loaded into xAKs . Obviously, ths will not reduce the operational tempo, since the tempo is linked to the Allied phenomenon of universal supply i.e any Allied unit can use supplies created in any Allied territory.

EDIT: MY search-fu powers returned! Look here:

tm.asp?m=4041216

Very interesting, thanks.
So, would you bother using DBB-C instead of DBB-B?

ORIGINAL: witpqs
It does reduce the Allies tempo, in practice.

I get that the rationale behind DBB-C is to slow down the operational tempo but, just to clarify the reason behind my original question, I'd like to know also how does it achieve this goal.

WitP-AE is a great wargame, not only because it gives a reasonable account of WW2 in the Pacific at the strategic level, but also because it manages to do this while giving also a plausible depiction of the operational and tactical levels too. This is truly remarkable, neither WitE nor WitW managed to fully achieve this goal, IMHO.

Now, my main concern is that, adopting DBB-C for my next PBeM game, I could obtain a more realistic strategic pace but at the expense of operational and tactical realism.
I would not like to discover that the price to pay for the overall slower tempo is that I cannot use the historical "nodes" for my LOCs in the Pacific because my transports are too short legged, or that I have to form ridiculously large transport and amphibious TFs because of the 30% reduction on cargo capacities.
In other words, I don't want to sacrifice tactical and operational detail on the altar of the (supposed) strategical realism.

So, if the DBB-C mod corrected cargo capacities because the actual cargo space needed to obtain a given result is actually underestimated in the game (i.e. you can use 10 ships where in RL they would have allocated 14 ships for the same task) I'm all for it. If the reductions are there just to artificially impose a slower tempo... well, no thanks, I think I'll stick with DBB-B. I'm a slow player by myself! [:D]

I'm a slow player by myself! [:D]

Some people actually like that.

It is not just the reduction in cargo capacity for supplies but also carrying unit equipment. Since the ships are the same tonnage, less cargo capacity can be docked which can really hurt the smaller ports as well as the major supply ports with the longer loading/unloading times for the larger cargo TFs. This would really byte in multi-day turns.

Since it would also take more ships to move the same amount of tonnage and shipping is a finite quantity, this can impair the movement for the allies early in the game and maybe even slow down the Japanese rapid advance. It also depends upon the escort policy, i.e. how many are there, where are they and how many do you need/want. If you want every ship/convoy as well protected as before with the same number of cargo ships per escort, it will take more escorts.

I am sure that there are other things as well but I haven't had any coffee yet. [:@]

ORIGINAL: amatteucci

ORIGINAL: Yaab

DBB C reduced the ship cargo capacity, but it also reduced device load costs, thus the only thing that got really reduced is the amount of cargo/res/fuel that can be loaded into xAKs . Obviously, ths will not reduce the operational tempo, since the tempo is linked to the Allied phenomenon of universal supply i.e any Allied unit can use supplies created in any Allied territory.

EDIT: MY search-fu powers returned! Look here:

tm.asp?m=4041216

Very interesting, thanks.
So, would you bother using DBB-C instead of DBB-B?

ORIGINAL: witpqs
It does reduce the Allies tempo, in practice.

I get that the rationale behind DBB-C is to slow down the operational tempo but, just to clarify the reason behind my original question, I'd like to know also how does it achieve this goal.

WitP-AE is a great wargame, not only because it gives a reasonable account of WW2 in the Pacific at the strategic level, but also because it manages to do this while giving also a plausible depiction of the operational and tactical levels too. This is truly remarkable, neither WitE nor WitW managed to fully achieve this goal, IMHO.

Now, my main concern is that, adopting DBB-C for my next PBeM game, I could obtain a more realistic strategic pace but at the expense of operational and tactical realism.
I would not like to discover that the price to pay for the overall slower tempo is that I cannot use the historical "nodes" for my LOCs in the Pacific because my transports are too short legged, or that I have to form ridiculously large transport and amphibious TFs because of the 30% reduction on cargo capacities.
In other words, I don't want to sacrifice tactical and operational detail on the altar of the (supposed) strategical realism.

So, if the DBB-C mod corrected cargo capacities because the actual cargo space needed to obtain a given result is actually underestimated in the game (i.e. you can use 10 ships where in RL they would have allocated 14 ships for the same task) I'm all for it. If the reductions are there just to artificially impose a slower tempo... well, no thanks, I think I'll stick with DBB-B. I'm a slow player by myself! [:D]

AFAIK range of ships was not adjusted. There is zero loss of detail.

ORIGINAL: amatteucci

ORIGINAL: Yaab

DBB C reduced the ship cargo capacity, but it also reduced device load costs, thus the only thing that got really reduced is the amount of cargo/res/fuel that can be loaded into xAKs . Obviously, ths will not reduce the operational tempo, since the tempo is linked to the Allied phenomenon of universal supply i.e any Allied unit can use supplies created in any Allied territory.

EDIT: MY search-fu powers returned! Look here:

tm.asp?m=4041216

Very interesting, thanks.
So, would you bother using DBB-C instead of DBB-B?

ORIGINAL: witpqs
It does reduce the Allies tempo, in practice.

I get that the rationale behind DBB-C is to slow down the operational tempo but, just to clarify the reason behind my original question, I'd like to know also how does it achieve this goal.

WitP-AE is a great wargame, not only because it gives a reasonable account of WW2 in the Pacific at the strategic level, but also because it manages to do this while giving also a plausible depiction of the operational and tactical levels too. This is truly remarkable, neither WitE nor WitW managed to fully achieve this goal, IMHO.

Now, my main concern is that, adopting DBB-C for my next PBeM game, I could obtain a more realistic strategic pace but at the expense of operational and tactical realism.
I would not like to discover that the price to pay for the overall slower tempo is that I cannot use the historical "nodes" for my LOCs in the Pacific because my transports are too short legged, or that I have to form ridiculously large transport and amphibious TFs because of the 30% reduction on cargo capacities.
In other words, I don't want to sacrifice tactical and operational detail on the altar of the (supposed) strategical realism.

So, if the DBB-C mod corrected cargo capacities because the actual cargo space needed to obtain a given result is actually underestimated in the game (i.e. you can use 10 ships where in RL they would have allocated 14 ships for the same task) I'm all for it. If the reductions are there just to artificially impose a slower tempo... well, no thanks, I think I'll stick with DBB-B. I'm a slow player by myself! [:D]

Yes, use DDB-C for your PBEM game, but in order to slow the operational tempo some add house rules like no fuel in xAKs; no Allied amphib landings using xAK ships; off-map ships must use cruise speed by default etc. Anyway, universal supply makes Allied tempo too fast and avenues of their advance too manifold.

ORIGINAL: Yaab

ORIGINAL: amatteucci

ORIGINAL: Yaab

DBB C reduced the ship cargo capacity, but it also reduced device load costs, thus the only thing that got really reduced is the amount of cargo/res/fuel that can be loaded into xAKs . Obviously, ths will not reduce the operational tempo, since the tempo is linked to the Allied phenomenon of universal supply i.e any Allied unit can use supplies created in any Allied territory.

EDIT: MY search-fu powers returned! Look here:

tm.asp?m=4041216

Very interesting, thanks.
So, would you bother using DBB-C instead of DBB-B?

ORIGINAL: witpqs
It does reduce the Allies tempo, in practice.

I get that the rationale behind DBB-C is to slow down the operational tempo but, just to clarify the reason behind my original question, I'd like to know also how does it achieve this goal.

WitP-AE is a great wargame, not only because it gives a reasonable account of WW2 in the Pacific at the strategic level, but also because it manages to do this while giving also a plausible depiction of the operational and tactical levels too. This is truly remarkable, neither WitE nor WitW managed to fully achieve this goal, IMHO.

Now, my main concern is that, adopting DBB-C for my next PBeM game, I could obtain a more realistic strategic pace but at the expense of operational and tactical realism.
I would not like to discover that the price to pay for the overall slower tempo is that I cannot use the historical "nodes" for my LOCs in the Pacific because my transports are too short legged, or that I have to form ridiculously large transport and amphibious TFs because of the 30% reduction on cargo capacities.
In other words, I don't want to sacrifice tactical and operational detail on the altar of the (supposed) strategical realism.

So, if the DBB-C mod corrected cargo capacities because the actual cargo space needed to obtain a given result is actually underestimated in the game (i.e. you can use 10 ships where in RL they would have allocated 14 ships for the same task) I'm all for it. If the reductions are there just to artificially impose a slower tempo... well, no thanks, I think I'll stick with DBB-B. I'm a slow player by myself! [:D]

Yes, use DDB-C for your PBEM game, but in order to slow the operational tempo some add house rules like no fuel in xAKs {in cargo space, some have a little tank space in addition to cargo space}; no Allied amphib landings using xAK ships {or xAP ships}; off-map ships must use cruise speed by default etc. Anyway, universal supply makes Allied tempo too fast and avenues of their advance too manifold.

+1
We don't have those as official HR but I adhere to those anyway.

Yes, I meant xAPs, but my mind had succumbed to some Aussie wine...

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Yes, I meant xAPs, but my mind had succumbed to some Aussie wine...

I meant both xAK and xAP.

no Allied amphib landings using . . . xAP ships

Do you mean contested landings where the current residents don't want you there? Or do you also mean those bases where there is no port and my transport TFs don't seem to want to unload anything?

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

no Allied amphib landings using . . . xAP ships

Do you mean contested landings where the current residents don't want you there? Or do you also mean those bases where there is no port and my transport TFs don't seem to want to unload anything?

Can't speak for Yaab's detailed approach on this, but I do not use them in amphib TF's period.

I also don't use xAKL that way. There are a few types (which are also few in number of ships) I don't remember well enough to list that I regard one way or the other, but they are very minor cases and very few in number.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I'm a slow player by myself! [:D]

Some people actually like that.

I like it too.

It is not just the reduction in cargo capacity for supplies but also carrying unit equipment. Since the ships are the same tonnage, less cargo capacity can be docked which can really hurt the smaller ports as well as the major supply ports with the longer loading/unloading times for the larger cargo TFs. This would really byte in multi-day turns.

I was under the impression (see the above post by Yaab) that the reduction doesn't actually affect unit equipment, because of the rescaling of loading costs.

This is an important issue because, if it could be proved that a given historical TF could not be able to transport the troops actually earmarked for that particular operation, it would be an instant deal breaker for me.

Unfortunately, I presume, there's no easy way to ascertain whether, say, Task Group 52.1 would be able to carry the 27th Infantry Division under DBB-C.

ORIGINAL: Yaab
Yes, use DDB-C for your PBEM game, but in order to slow the operational tempo some add house rules like no fuel in xAKs; no Allied amphib landings using xAK ships; off-map ships must use cruise speed by default etc. Anyway, universal supply makes Allied tempo too fast and avenues of their advance too manifold.

I already use a similar approcach. I mean, no xAPs/xAKs substituting for true APs/AKs when planning an amphibious invasion. But I use it more as a general guide than as a formal HR. Simply because I think that, in case of dire necessity, they would have used them also as troop transports.
It's the same reason, to say, for which I would never build a megastack of tens of CVEs as a substitute for a normal fleet CV TF.

I was under the impression (see the above post by Yaab) that the reduction doesn't actually affect unit equipment, because of the rescaling of loading costs.

This is an important issue because, if it could be proved that a given historical TF could not be able to transport the troops actually earmarked for that particular operation, it would be an instant deal breaker for me.

Their method in general was to reduce cargo and fuel capacity across the board. Then they looked over things to make certain all was well and discovered that the groups of ships which historically carried certain size units would not be able to so they fixed that. A mention was made above about adjusting device load cost (which would have other consequences I think) but I am not certain if they executed that or merely considered it. They might instead have settled on readjusting cargo capacity upwards in the various amphibious assault ships (AP, APA, AK, etc). I just don't remember for certain, but I think that is what they did. Someone who knows for certain might chime in.