DaBigBabes Beta errata

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design, art and sound modding and the game editor for WITP Admiral's Edition.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: JWE

In-game, there’s III, V, VII Amphib “Force” as well as I, V Amphib “Corps”. It’s looking more reasonable to have the Phib “Force” HQs be amphibious (type = 31), while having the Phib “Corps” be be nominal (type = 01).

Going back into the deep, dark recesses of my mind (some light please! [:D]), I remember the explanation that they were intended to operate in pairs. The 'Force' had the job of adding leadership to the landing, while the 'Corps' had the job of adding leadership to the ground fight. And I do mean in-game not IRL.
medicff
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:53 pm
Location: WPB, Florida

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by medicff »

Thanks for the Amphib corps /Amphib force clarification

IIRC didn't one of the middle patches make assignment to HQ "required" for ground units (or was it air units) to receive their bonuses?  My memory not so good anymore.  LOL

Another question re HQ assignment.

I like the Ceylon and Hawaiian HQ assignments.  Keeps players from borrowing these units.  The 2 regiments in SF set to fill the divisions in PH.  Initial game start regiment (forget number) is "pacific fleet" Hq to allow immed movement I think.  The second one "161" comes in as Hawaiian and must be changed to move to PH early game.  Is this intended to make players decide on PP's to reinf PH early or not?

Pat
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: medicff

IIRC didn't one of the middle patches make assignment to HQ "required" for ground units (or was it air units) to receive their bonuses?  My memory not so good anymore.  LOL

Not to the best of my knowledge and I hope not. There are simply not nearly enough PP's to move things around as that would require.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: medicff
Thanks for the Amphib corps /Amphib force clarification

IIRC didn't one of the middle patches make assignment to HQ "required" for ground units (or was it air units) to receive their bonuses?  My memory not so good anymore.  LOL

Another question re HQ assignment.

I like the Ceylon and Hawaiian HQ assignments.  Keeps players from borrowing these units.  The 2 regiments in SF set to fill the divisions in PH.  Initial game start regiment (forget number) is "pacific fleet" Hq to allow immed movement I think.  The second one "161" comes in as Hawaiian and must be changed to move to PH early game.  Is this intended to make players decide on PP's to reinf PH early or not?

Pat
It's just like it is in stock.
User avatar
vettim89
Posts: 3668
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by vettim89 »

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: medicff
Thanks for the Amphib corps /Amphib force clarification

IIRC didn't one of the middle patches make assignment to HQ "required" for ground units (or was it air units) to receive their bonuses?  My memory not so good anymore.  LOL

Another question re HQ assignment.

I like the Ceylon and Hawaiian HQ assignments.  Keeps players from borrowing these units.  The 2 regiments in SF set to fill the divisions in PH.  Initial game start regiment (forget number) is "pacific fleet" Hq to allow immed movement I think.  The second one "161" comes in as Hawaiian and must be changed to move to PH early game.  Is this intended to make players decide on PP's to reinf PH early or not?

Pat
It's just like it is in stock.


Not to be contrarian here but that really doesn't answer the question. Is it like stock as a mechinism to force the Allied player to pay PP to make choices or is it "just like stock" as perpetuation of an error. By that I mean if the RGT in question was historically used to defend Hawaii, why does it arrive at SF assigned to a restricted command? If it was an oversight in stock, why not correct it in DaBabes?
"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by witpqs »

It's a matter of code, not a mod. The command assignment doesn't matter. It can defend Hawaii with full corp/command HQ bonuses and still be assigned to the restricted command. In fact, the restricted command makes it harder to move it away from Hawaii (which would constitute not defending Hawaii).

Am I understanding your question right?
Menser
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: Peabody, Massachusetts

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by Menser »

Its doesn't start in Hawaii, Witpqs. The Unit in question starts in San Fransisco.
"Alea iacta est." Caius Julius
"If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing." Emo Philips
"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." Abbot Arnaud Amalric
medicff
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:53 pm
Location: WPB, Florida

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by medicff »

I am not sure but I believe JWE means the HQ assignment bonus is like it is in stock.

The specific unit 161 RGT is not like stock as stock does not have the restricted "Hawaiian HQ" (Only found in DaBabes) and it is assigned to the non restricted "Pacific fleet" HQ.

Pat
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by JWE »

Yes. I meant that HQs work like stock - no assignment necessary for bonus, just be within command radius. Sorry for the confusion.

Hawaiian dept is in all scenarios, stock and Babes - restricted permanent. 24th and 25th Inf Divs (broken down to Regts) are assigned to unrestricted PacFlt. Each has 2 Regts in Hawaii assigned to Hawaiian Dept. Needs PPs to buy them out. 34th IR arrives SFO assigned to unrestricted PacFlt. So far exactly like stock. Only difference is 161st IR arrives SFO assigned to Hawaiian Dept so needs to be bought out as well. All the Regts need to be bought out in any case to reconstitute the 2 divisions. All that changed is one must buy 5 regts instead of 4.

Technically, perhaps, the 34th IR would be a better choice for initial data assignment to Hawaiian Dept, but 161st IR was also assigned (reassigned from 41st ID) to Hawaiian Dept and wasn't actually made part of 25 ID till summer '42. Six of one, half dozen of t'other.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Going back into the deep, dark recesses of my mind (some light please! [:D]), I remember the explanation that they were intended to operate in pairs. The 'Force' had the job of adding leadership to the landing, while the 'Corps' had the job of adding leadership to the ground fight. And I do mean in-game not IRL.
Yes. Good way to look at it. Confirmed that phib HQs don't give combat bonuses, just the assault landing bonus.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yes. I meant that HQs work like stock - no assignment necessary for bonus, just be within command radius. Sorry for the confusion.

Hawaiian dept is in all scenarios, stock and Babes - restricted permanent. 24th and 25th Inf Divs (broken down to Regts) are assigned to unrestricted PacFlt. Each has 2 Regts in Hawaii assigned to Hawaiian Dept. Needs PPs to buy them out. 34th IR arrives SFO assigned to unrestricted PacFlt. So far exactly like stock. Only difference is 161st IR arrives SFO assigned to Hawaiian Dept so needs to be bought out as well. All the Regts need to be bought out in any case to reconstitute the 2 divisions. All that changed is one must buy 5 regts instead of 4.

Technically, perhaps, the 34th IR would be a better choice for initial data assignment to Hawaiian Dept, but 161st IR was also assigned (reassigned from 41st ID) to Hawaiian Dept and wasn't actually made part of 25 ID till summer '42. Six of one, half dozen of t'other.

The part in bold I don't really get - why have a unit arriving at San Francisco but assigned to Hawaiian Dept? That means it's stuck in SF until bought out, but HD assignment implies tasking it to protect Hawaii. Just curious about the reasoning.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: JWE
Yes. I meant that HQs work like stock - no assignment necessary for bonus, just be within command radius. Sorry for the confusion.

Hawaiian dept is in all scenarios, stock and Babes - restricted permanent. 24th and 25th Inf Divs (broken down to Regts) are assigned to unrestricted PacFlt. Each has 2 Regts in Hawaii assigned to Hawaiian Dept. Needs PPs to buy them out. 34th IR arrives SFO assigned to unrestricted PacFlt. So far exactly like stock. Only difference is 161st IR arrives SFO assigned to Hawaiian Dept so needs to be bought out as well. All the Regts need to be bought out in any case to reconstitute the 2 divisions. All that changed is one must buy 5 regts instead of 4.

Technically, perhaps, the 34th IR would be a better choice for initial data assignment to Hawaiian Dept, but 161st IR was also assigned (reassigned from 41st ID) to Hawaiian Dept and wasn't actually made part of 25 ID till summer '42. Six of one, half dozen of t'other.
The part in bold I don't really get - why have a unit arriving at San Francisco but assigned to Hawaiian Dept? That means it's stuck in SF until bought out, but HD assignment implies tasking it to protect Hawaii. Just curious about the reasoning.
Not a lot of reasoning. Just wanted to limit the scale of units available in early war. Must admit, we missed the implication of having to buy out before it could move to HI. perhaps better to have it appear at PH 411221 but still assigned to HC?

[edit] thinkin on it, there was a rats nest of HI National Guard unit evolution going on at the time. Perhaps reasonable to let both 34th and 161st IR appear at PH, but have both assigned to HC. that would acceptably limit the troops available for whacko stuff and also model the in-and-out existence of 298th and 299th HING regts?
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: JWE

Not a lot of reasoning. Just wanted to limit the scale of units available in early war. Must admit, we missed the implication of having to buy out before it could move to HI. perhaps better to have it appear at PH 411221 but still assigned to HC?

[edit] thinkin on it, there was a rats nest of HI National Guard unit evolution going on at the time. Perhaps reasonable to let both 34th and 161st IR appear at PH, but have both assigned to HC. that would acceptably limit the troops available for whacko stuff and also model the in-and-out existence of 298th and 299th HING regts?

Does seem reasonable.

In my Scen 1 PBM (mid-43) what I am noticing is that a lot of USMC units - especially air - are arrive with restricted commands when maybe they shouldn't. Something to look at if you put additional PP demands on earlier units.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Does seem reasonable.

In my Scen 1 PBM (mid-43) what I am noticing is that a lot of USMC units - especially air - are arrive with restricted commands when maybe they shouldn't. Something to look at if you put additional PP demands on earlier units.
Okay. Must say that we tried to keep the whole HQ assignment thing as close to stock as we could, especially after the AI attribute flurry. Don't think it will have a significant impact on gaming, in general, and on-going games, in particular, but yeah, HQ assignment was a late-model introduction and could use some spit and polish (maybe some Brasso or Noxon). Definitely something to look at. And thanks for your comments. Ciao. J
medicff
Posts: 710
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:53 pm
Location: WPB, Florida

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by medicff »

ORIGINAL: JWE

Not a lot of reasoning. Just wanted to limit the scale of units available in early war. Must admit, we missed the implication of having to buy out before it could move to HI. perhaps better to have it appear at PH 411221 but still assigned to HC?

[edit] thinkin on it, there was a rats nest of HI National Guard unit evolution going on at the time. Perhaps reasonable to let both 34th and 161st IR appear at PH, but have both assigned to HC. that would acceptably limit the troops available for whacko stuff and also model the in-and-out existence of 298th and 299th HING regts?

That sounds like a good solution.

Another change from stock is the Americal division components. In stock the 132 and 182 are assigned Pacific Fleet and can move immediately, the 164 is West Coast and must be bought.

In DaBabes all 3 are west Coast and must be bought - 25 turns worth of PP's for the extra two.

I only bring this up because it is a major early drain on PP's and bringing troops out of USA. And while your thinking on this [:D]

Pat
User avatar
vettim89
Posts: 3668
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by vettim89 »

ORIGINAL: medicff

ORIGINAL: JWE

Not a lot of reasoning. Just wanted to limit the scale of units available in early war. Must admit, we missed the implication of having to buy out before it could move to HI. perhaps better to have it appear at PH 411221 but still assigned to HC?

[edit] thinkin on it, there was a rats nest of HI National Guard unit evolution going on at the time. Perhaps reasonable to let both 34th and 161st IR appear at PH, but have both assigned to HC. that would acceptably limit the troops available for whacko stuff and also model the in-and-out existence of 298th and 299th HING regts?

That sounds like a good solution.

Another change from stock is the Americal division components. In stock the 132 and 182 are assigned Pacific Fleet and can move immediately, the 164 is West Coast and must be bought.

In DaBabes all 3 are west Coast and must be bought - 25 turns worth of PP's for the extra two.

I only bring this up because it is a major early drain on PP's and bringing troops out of USA. And while your thinking on this [:D]

Pat

Americal is an enigma to me as far as the game goes. It was called "Americal" because it was sent to New Caledonia early in 1942. Yet in many games, it never gets any where near there. I know we are so used to this but the 23rd Inf Div would probably be a better name. Now as for history and where it belongs, this has always been a source of irritation to me.

Quoting from the Div's own website:
"The AMERICAL Division had its origin in Task Force 6814 formed on 14 January, 1942 with the mission of occupying and defending New Caledonia. It departed New York on 23 Jan 42. The force landed in Australia 26 Feb 42 and was sent to New Caledonia 6 Mar 42, arriving there 12 Mar 42 and establishing Headquarters at Noumea. There the task force organized the defenses and built installations on New Caledonia and New Hebrides. The AMERICAL Division was organized from Task Force 6814 which was disbanded on 27 May 42; its name was a contraction of the words "American" and "New Caledonia".

Going by that statement the three RGT's should appear at ECUSA in mid-January 1942 with sufficient lift to get them to Oz by the end of February. Alternatively they could just arrive in Oz as a reinforcement. From that point on it should be up to the players to choose where to deploy them. So in my mind, the 23rd ID should a. Never be assigned to a restricted command as it was ear marked for forward deployment from the get go b. either appear on the map in Oz in the reinforcement cue or have sufficient AP's arrive at ECUSA with them to get them to Oz

Sorry about the rant but this one just bugs me

Edit: it appears the 164th RGT was trailing the other two by a month arriving Noumea on 19 April 1942. Ironic that the 164th was also the first RGT commited to battle on GC
"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: vettim89
Sorry about the rant but this one just bugs me
Hey, no worries. Don Bowen has the entire composition of TF 6814 that arrived Melbourne 26 Feb. Providing lift is an issue since there's lots of different units, and the ships will all have to be withdrawn soon after (pita), so perhaps best to have units arrive in Melbourne on 26 Feb.

Brother Shelby Stanton says - 164th IR was assigned to 4th Army, moved to Ft Ord 17 Dec, '41, transferred to GHQ 30 Jan, '42, depart SFO for OZ 19 Mar, '42, moved to New Cal 19 Apr, '42, assigned to Americal 24 May, '42. So believe it reasonable to have 164th arrive Ft Ord 411217 assigned to WC (and make the other 2 free). All that's needed then is some PP to buy it out and some lift from SFO to OZ (should be enough at SFO).
Buck Beach
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Upland,CA,USA

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by Buck Beach »

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: vettim89
Sorry about the rant but this one just bugs me
Hey, no worries. Don Bowen has the entire composition of TF 6814 that arrived Melbourne 26 Feb. Providing lift is an issue since there's lots of different units, and the ships will all have to be withdrawn soon after (pita), so perhaps best to have units arrive in Melbourne on 26 Feb.

Brother Shelby Stanton says - 164th IR was assigned to 4th Army, moved to Ft Ord 17 Dec, '41, transferred to GHQ 30 Jan, '42, depart SFO for OZ 19 Mar, '42, moved to New Cal 19 Apr, '42, assigned to Americal 24 May, '42. So believe it reasonable to have 164th arrive Ft Ord 411217 assigned to WC (and make the other 2 free). All that's needed then is some PP to buy it out and some lift from SFO to OZ (should be enough at SFO).

Are you saying the 164th has to hitch hike from SFO but the others get the benefit of transporting down to Melbourne (beam me down Scottie)? I don't care much for "wormhole" travel in the game, but that's just me.

User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Are you saying the 164th has to hitch hike from SFO but the others get the benefit of transporting down to Melbourne (beam me down Scottie)? I don't care much for "wormhole" travel in the game, but that's just me.
I’m not a wormhole fan myself, but there are very few alternative options. In a scenario of this scale, we wanted to hew very closely to those decisions made, and deployments ordered, in the time frame immediately following PH. As time progresses, options open.

TF 6814 had a bunch more stuff than just the Americal components. The lift used to move them to OZ, through the Canal, was immediately returned to Caribbean and Atlantic station. None of the ships were under PacFlt command. So what to do? Put could put the units at ECUSA or Balboa with a delayed entry TF comprising the lift with a Melbourne destination, but that TF must be withdrawn immediately after delivering the units. Or we could avoid the clickfest and just have the movement be considered in the abstract and have the units show up where they did, when they did.

The case for the 164th is it was at Ft Ord, it was at SFO, and its assignments were historical. Everyone understands that a full div has a better combat shot than 3 constituent regts, so the intent is get people to reconstitute the div. Other intent is to give the smaller scen designers (and highly players) the opportunity to use the 164th as an early reinforcement for the Canal, with the rest of the div schlepping in later and reconstituting in situ.

Don’t forget, this is just the first 30-60 days of activity, where the historical record is clear. As the smoke blows away, ‘other’ stuff may happen. Scenario design is a very interesting exercise. There are no real answers, just probabilities. Probabilities are very high, very early on, but very soon turn into vapor. Hope this helps you understand where we are coming from and the implications we have to deal with.
User avatar
vettim89
Posts: 3668
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

RE: DaBigBabes Beta errata

Post by vettim89 »

Really like this solution. I have no problem with the abstract lift as there is little to no benefit to have a convoy appear to take TF 6814 to Oz and then be withdrawn. While not 100% realistic, it is certainly player friendly.

This makes my day: first a B-17E flies over my office at lunch (NO LIE!) and now a more historical fix for 23rd ID
"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”