Fair and Balanced...

[el cid again]

I understand - I meant five of the Essex class carriers that actually went to the Pacific.

A late war type respawn would almost certainly be a better alternative than the current version.

IF you are playing a game trying to SIMULATE strategic decisions by Allied commanders and leaders;

AND IF you believe you are doing so well some of your ships would be sent to ETO or another place;

I see nothing to stop you from sending the surpluss ships to, say, Colon Panama and leaving them there.

Unlike if the code stole them from you, it would also give you the option to bring them back if the war situation changed again to your disadvantage.

[el cid again]

Does the A2A code or ASW routine or Naval Comabt routine or others look at the devices and determine that one side is Japanese and the other Allied and make decisions based on this? Or do the routines just plug in the raw data fed to them, apply the routine to the data and feed us the results.

In general, no - devices work as is and can usually be assigned to either side.

But this is a very complex and sophisticated game with many specific subroutines and there are some exceptions. It is impossible to document all of them, but from time to time we get indicators. ASW is a case where the Allied advantages are structural, in the code. Note there are NO detection devices of the sonar sort - and the nature of an escort for one side is wholly different than for the other side - even if identically armed.

[el cid again]

Did the designers craft the model to account for differences in doctrine or other unquantifiable aspects? How does one quantify the "surprise" of encountering a new design which far outperforms your expectations and thus your training, such that your doctrine is ill-prepared to deal with the new type and so doctrine is changed to counter the strength?

There is really no way to deal with things like the ignorance of the Allies about weapons like Long Lance torpedoes. Players can be far more circumspect about engaging in surface action than real commanders were - and they have some clue why they should be the real commanders didn't. But many of the advantages of surprise were hard coded. The most dramatic are first day bonus or freezing rules.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I understand - I meant five of the Essex class carriers that actually went to the Pacific.

Not having the extra ships does not mean that ships currently under construction have their construction cancelled mid-war. It most likely means that ship construction slows, new ships enter service at longer intervals, resulting in fewer ships entering service by the end of the war.

Conversely, if CV losses mount, more resources are allocated to replacement CVs, construction speeds up, new ships enter service at shorter intervals, resulting in more ships entering service by the end of the war.

There is no need to invoke scrapping of hulls to explain what the "respawn" rule is representing.

One problem with any respawn is that in reality it would have also depended on Japanese carrier losses, and on other aspects of the strategic situation. Suppose the US did not lose those 5 fleet carriers. Would maybe 1, 2, or even 3 of those Essex CV's have gone to the Atlantic? Not if the Japanese also had lost no fleet carriers. Those Essex's would've piled into the Pacific to provide superiority in CV's. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Yes indeed. It is certainly true that the "respawn" rule is very simplistic, and there are other factors that could be taken into account but are not. But I don't see that as a reason for making the game less accurate (in my opinion) by dropping the rule altogether.

[el cid again]

Yes indeed. It is certainly true that the "respawn" rule is very simplistic, and there are other factors that could be taken into account but are not. But I don't see that as a reason for making the game less accurate (in my opinion) by dropping the rule altogether.

For whatever it is worth, I agree with Andrew. I think it is moot - we cannot modify code. But IF I COULD modify code I would not change this rule - except maybe to make it more sophisticated. Many other things should be priority over that IMHO. I support the design intent of the rule and chalk it up to the level of the game (which is not as detailed as I would like, but a whole lot more detailed than I expected)

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Yes indeed. It is certainly true that the "respawn" rule is very simplistic, and there are other factors that could be taken into account but are not. But I don't see that as a reason for making the game less accurate (in my opinion) by dropping the rule altogether.

For whatever it is worth, I agree with Andrew. I think it is moot - we cannot modify code. But IF I COULD modify code I would not change this rule - except maybe to make it more sophisticated. Many other things should be priority over that IMHO. I support the design intent of the rule and chalk it up to the level of the game (which is not as detailed as I would like, but a whole lot more detailed than I expected)

A very simple design change in the code IMO (not having actually seen it) would be to add 720 days instead of the current 550 days to the date of sinking and to adjust the arrival dates of the current crop of Essex CV's to a date with the originally commissioned Essex's.

[el cid again]

A very simple design change in the code IMO (not having actually seen it) would be to add 720 days instead of the current 550 days to the date of sinking and to adjust the arrival dates of the current crop of Essex CV's to a date with the originally commissioned Essex's.

Then you may rejoice: I intend to only put in historical dates of arrival for Essex class ships. And if the ship commissioned before the end of 9/45, and if it was sent to the Pacific, expect to see it in RHS. If the respawn rule makes another ship, it will represent some ship really sent to the Atlantic or completed later but accelerated. OK?

[Mike Scholl]

Why not forget the re-spawn completely and just have the ships arrive as they did historically. For people who worry about such things, give players the ability to re-name ships if they want to. Then if they want to have a Hornet II, you can just re-name one of the incoming CV's. Most people won't worry about it. But make sure that ships do arrive as they actually did, regardless of what they are called. And do away with Japanese Production (which only creates totally ahistoric OB's) and use actual production figures.

[veji1]

Well I don't know but wouldn't it be a good idea to extend the respawn rule to 10 ships instead of 5 ? In this case, if the US suffers very few losses-->few new ships, but if losses get heavy, it gets lots of free boats...

The threshold being 5, if the US lose less than 5 CV overall, than you can say that the respawn rule is against them, but if they suffer some sort of spanking and lose more than 5, then the respawn rule gets beneficial compared to history, and emulates the likely reaction of a US governement facing a big naval defeat....

Does it make sense ?

[Alikchi2]

Mike Scholl: I like your ideas, but I also approve of what Andrew was talking about, as well.

Why not have it a toggle in scenario options, like sub doctrines? No Respawn would have all ships arrive as per history; Respawn would implement something like Andrew's idea. Similarly, we could have toggles for Japanese and Allied production: Off (everything arrives exactly as historical), or On (production is useable.)

I also definitely support the renaming of ships. Historically minded players won't find as much use in it as the kid who wants to name all the ships after his favorite foods (or whatever), but it'd be useful to both.

Some US late-war ships (CVEs particularly) are named after battles or locations in the Pacific War. It'd be nice to be able to change the name of that ship named to a victory you won, instead of a victory that happened in history but not in your game.

Way too much of WitP is hard-coded, if you ask me. (Then again, I'd like NOTHING to be hard-coded - but that might not be good for business!) When it comes to contentious preference issues like these, I think that the developers should give us a choice. Everyone can be happy with that.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Why not forget the re-spawn completely and just have the ships arrive as they did historically. For people who worry about such things, give players the ability to re-name ships if they want to. Then if they want to have a Hornet II, you can just re-name one of the incoming CV's. Most people won't worry about it. But make sure that ships do arrive as they actually did, regardless of what they are called. And do away with Japanese Production (which only creates totally ahistoric OB's) and use actual production figures.

I agree Mike, and why bother with the renaming at all? I believe each "Hornet II & Lexington II" already had a name...just stick with the original names.

I'd rather have all the CV's built than making sure Enterprise gets replaced..[;)]

[Hoplosternum]

ORIGINAL: veji1

Does it make sense ?

It does [:D] But I don't really agree because my dissatisfaction with the Respawn rule is two fold.

1) I would prefer to just have the historic ships. Not the game designers guess/game balancing method here. We are talking about CVs. Not MSWs or AKs. Why not just give us the main ships we got historically? I have no doubt the US could have built more or differently but in the basic game I just want what they got.

2) This is entirely the wrong thing to try and balance. One of the weaknesses of the game is that a hyper aggressive / successful Japanese player has no impact on the allied OOB. Knock over China? No problem. India ditto. Australia falls? Who cares.... Only the sinking of certain ships and invasion of US triggers anything and then too late to have much impact. If you are having a crisis in '42 you need help then, not 18 months later at which point (if you are still playing) you WILL be winning.

But the US and Britain had stuff to send in '42. It's just they chose to focus on Europe instead. I'd much rather have had (optional) triggers to release some of this to the Pacific. So if the Japanese are doing much better than historically in '42 there is the option for say Torch to be cancelled and the allies receive some extra squadrons, shipping and LCUs. Some time in '43 there is a desicion on Sicily. Early '42 on the level of Lend Lease could be determined.

If any are triggered the Japanese gets a bonus on his level of defeat/victory at the end or something. Even if the option is turned off (i.e. the allies get nothing extra) the result could be displayed. It would give the Japanese player something to aim at rather than just the 4:1 ratio which not only appears very hard but requires a wild and reckless play style that not everyone finds appealing.

Oh well maybe in WitP 2 [;)]

[Tom Hunter]

I think the air combat model has biases that are actaully bad for both sides and the game.

The combat model gives an advantage to the side with the larger number of planes in combat, and it increases the percentage of casualties in larger battles.

Both of these things are the opposite of historical fact, in real air to air combat outnumbering the enemy did not increase his casualties (if it did the Battle of Britian would have been a German victory). Also in real air to air combat the % casualties in small battles is the same as or higher than the % in large battles. Basically when 2 pilots meet one of them is very likely to be shot down, but when 200 pilots meet many of them will not be shot at or shoot at all.

The net effect of this is punishment for the weaker side, which means the Allies in the early game and the Japanese in the later part of the game. This is too bad because if a player of the game behaves smarter than the historical Allies or Japanese they do not get a victory for it, they get a massacre of thier own side.

Since the Allies have superiority over the Japanese for a longer period of the game I think this bias actually favors the Allies, but if an Allied player is unaware of the problem it can cause them to lose all the US CVs early in the game, which might be a bias in favor of the Japanese.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Alikchi
I also definitely support the renaming of ships. Historically minded players won't find as much use in it as the kid who wants to name all the ships after his favorite foods (or whatever), but it'd be useful to both.

Some US late-war ships (CVEs particularly) are named after battles or locations in the Pacific War. It'd be nice to be able to change the name of that ship named to a victory you won, instead of a victory that happened in history but not in your game.

I'd like to see the ability to rename ships as well. That would be a nice touch.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Why not forget the re-spawn completely and just have the ships arrive as they did historically.

I guess this comes down to player preference. I like the "respawn" rule because it seems to represent how the USA would actually react to what is happening in the Pacific. To me, because the game does not follow the historic path, having a rigid historical reinforcement schedule is a bit artificial. The reinforcements arrive as per the real life situation, but the game is not in that same situation, so there is a mismatch.

I realise that this does not apply to other things, such as air and land reinforcements (with the exception of the random arrival options), but maybe there is scope for improvement in those areas as well. For example, the ability for the Allies to accelerate, or slow down, air and land reinforcements, perhaps with VPs being adjusted as a result. Even some control over if and when Allied ships are sent to the theatre from the Atlantic (again with VP and/or PP costs).

Another factor is deciding what the player is meant to represent. Again I think different people have different ideas about that. My view is that the player represents the theater commanders. E.g. Nimitz and Macarthur for the USA. Not the national governments. For this reason the Allied player does not control Allied production, but could conceivably have some influence in what assets are allocated to their theatre, via the PP mechanism. Japan is different, in that the theater commanders do directly influence the national government, so do have some control over production. Others have different views on this as well, no doubt.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Why not forget the re-spawn completely and just have the ships arrive as they did historically. For people who worry about such things, give players the ability to re-name ships if they want to. Then if they want to have a Hornet II, you can just re-name one of the incoming CV's. Most people won't worry about it. But make sure that ships do arrive as they actually did, regardless of what they are called. And do away with Japanese Production (which only creates totally ahistoric OB's) and use actual production figures.

I agree Mike, and why bother with the renaming at all? I believe each "Hornet II & Lexington II" already had a name...just stick with the original names.

I'd rather have all the CV's built than making sure Enterprise gets replaced..[;)]

You mean this? LOL I've posted this about a dozen times.

Missing US Navy Vessels

**** (denotes vessel needing name)

USN Vessels Omitted/Affected By Spawning Feature/Name Duplication Issue

Essex Class

CV 10 Bon Homme Richard May/43 (historically Yorktown II)
CV 12 Kearsarge Dec/43 (historically Hornet II)
CV 16 Cabot March/43(historically Lexington II)
CV 18 Oriskany Dec/43(historically Wasp II)
CV 31 Reprisal Dec/44(historically Bon Homme Richard) *(Named after cancelled Essex)

Independence Class

CVL 28 Chesapeake Aug/43 (historically Cabot)*(Famous Revolutionary War Battle).

Baltimore Class

CA 70 Pittsburg Nov/43 (historically Canberra II)
CA 71 St. Paul Jan/44 (historically Quincy II)
CA 72 Albany Nov/44 (historically Pittsburg)
CA 73 Rochester March/45 (historically St. Paul)

Cleveland Class

CL 64 Flint Feb/44(historically Vincennes II)
CL 81 Vicksburg Jan/44(historically HoustonII)
CL 86 Cheyenne July/44(historically Vicksburg)
CL 90 Wilkes-Barre June/44(historically Astoria II)
CL 103 Buffalo Aug/44(historically Wilkes Barre)
CL104 Tallahassee Jan/45(historically Atlanta II)

Atlanta Class

CL 97 Spokane Oct/44(historically Flint)

These following ships need to be added as they were simply omitted because of name duplication...why DDs and SSs are not respawnable when other classes and MSWs (???) are eludes me. These hull numbers historically were in the Pacific Theatre During WW2 and deserve to be included...who for instance sank Kongo?

Balao Class

SS 313 Nerka Jan/44(historically Perch II)*named after cancelled Balao and sub in "Run Silent, Run Deep".
SS 314 Eel Feb/44(historically Shark II)*named after cancelled Balao
SS 315 Adder March/44(historically Sealion II)*early US sub name

Tench Class

SS 476 Sole Feb/45(historically Runner II)*named after cancelled Balao

Fletcher Class

DD 795 Boon Apr/44(historically Preston II, named after USN DD in C.S. Forrester Short Stories)
DD 796 O'Leary March/44(historically Benham II, named after USN DD in William P Mack novels)
DD 797 McKenna July/44(historically Cushing II, named after "Sand Pebbles" author.
DD 798 Mack Apr/44 (historically Monssen II, named after author W.P. Mack)
DD 799 Caine Aug/44 (historically Jarvis II, named after fictitious Wouk DMS)
DD 800 Percival Aug/44 (historically Porter II, named after cancelled DD )
DD 801 Watson Sep/44 (historically Colhoun II, named after cancelled DD)
DD 802 Oswald A. Powers Sep/44 (historically Gregory II, named after incomplete DE)
DD 803 Groves Nov/44 (historically Little II, named after incomplete DE )

Allen M Sumner Class

DD 722 Keith Sep/44 (historically Barton II, named after main character in 'The Caine Mutiny" and incomplete DE)
DD 723 Alfred Wolf Sep/44 (historically Walke II, named after incomplete DE )
DD 724 Keppler Sep/44 (historically Laffey II, named after cancelled DE)
DD 725 Holman Sep/44 (historically O'Brien II, named after main character in "The Sand Pebbles")
DD 726 Gaynier Sep/44 (historically Meredith II, named after incomplete DE)
DD 727 Curtis W. Howard July/44 (historically DeHaven II, named after incomplete DE)
DD 744 John J. Vanburen July/44 (historically Blue II, named after incomplete DE)
DD 758 Paul G. Baker May/45 (historically Strong II, named after incomplete DE)

Allen M Sumner Minelayer

DM 33 (ex DD 772) Milton Lewis (historically Gwin II, named after incomplete DE)
DM 34 (ex DD 773) George M. Campell (historically Aaron Ward II, named after incomplete DE)

Gearing Class

DD 784 Rogers Blood (historically McKean II, named after cancelled DE)
DD 805 Carpellotti (historically Chevalier II, named after cancelled DE)
DD 877 Francovich (historically Perkins II, named after cancelled DE)

Edsall Class DEs

DE 129 Cramer July/45 (historically named Edsall II, named after incomplete DE)
DE 131 Ely July/45 (historically named Hammann II, named after incomplete DE)
DE 238 Delbert W. Halsey July/45 (historically named Stewart II, named after incomplete DE)

Buckley Class DEs

DE 154 Sheehan Jan/45 (historically named Sims II, named after incomplete DE)



Australian ship affected by respawn...

Tribal Class DD HMAS Kurnai (renamed Bataan)

[Mike Scholl]

Exactly what I meant Ron. Forget "re-spawning" and just have the ships arrive when the ships actually arrived. Keeps the US from "losing" the ships you mention. It really doesn't matter what they are named as long as they really arrive. I mentioned "re-naming" as an option for those that like to "keep things accurate" in that sense. I doube more than one if five will ever bother, but keeping them happy shouldn't be a big programming problem.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Why not forget the re-spawn completely and just have the ships arrive as they did historically. For people who worry about such things, give players the ability to re-name ships if they want to. Then if they want to have a Hornet II, you can just re-name one of the incoming CV's. Most people won't worry about it. But make sure that ships do arrive as they actually did, regardless of what they are called. And do away with Japanese Production (which only creates totally ahistoric OB's) and use actual production figures.

I agree Mike, and why bother with the renaming at all? I believe each "Hornet II & Lexington II" already had a name...just stick with the original names.

I'd rather have all the CV's built than making sure Enterprise gets replaced..[;)]

You mean this? LOL I've posted this about a dozen times.

Missing US Navy Vessels

**** (denotes vessel needing name)

USN Vessels Omitted/Affected By Spawning Feature/Name Duplication Issue

Essex Class

CV 10 Bon Homme Richard May/43 (historically Yorktown II)
CV 12 Kearsarge Dec/43 (historically Hornet II)
CV 16 Cabot March/43(historically Lexington II)
CV 18 Oriskany Dec/43(historically Wasp II)
CV 31 Reprisal Dec/44(historically Bon Homme Richard) *(Named after cancelled Essex)

Independence Class

CVL 28 Chesapeake Aug/43 (historically Cabot)*(Famous Revolutionary War Battle).

Baltimore Class

CA 70 Pittsburg Nov/43 (historically Canberra II)
CA 71 St. Paul Jan/44 (historically Quincy II)
CA 72 Albany Nov/44 (historically Pittsburg)
CA 73 Rochester March/45 (historically St. Paul)

Cleveland Class

CL 64 Flint Feb/44(historically Vincennes II)
CL 81 Vicksburg Jan/44(historically HoustonII)
CL 86 Cheyenne July/44(historically Vicksburg)
CL 90 Wilkes-Barre June/44(historically Astoria II)
CL 103 Buffalo Aug/44(historically Wilkes Barre)
CL104 Tallahassee Jan/45(historically Atlanta II)

Atlanta Class

CL 97 Spokane Oct/44(historically Flint)

These following ships need to be added as they were simply omitted because of name duplication...why DDs and SSs are not respawnable when other classes and MSWs (???) are eludes me. These hull numbers historically were in the Pacific Theatre During WW2 and deserve to be included...who for instance sank Kongo?

Balao Class

SS 313 Nerka Jan/44(historically Perch II)*named after cancelled Balao and sub in "Run Silent, Run Deep".
SS 314 Eel Feb/44(historically Shark II)*named after cancelled Balao
SS 315 Adder March/44(historically Sealion II)*early US sub name

Tench Class

SS 476 Sole Feb/45(historically Runner II)*named after cancelled Balao

Fletcher Class

DD 795 Boon Apr/44(historically Preston II, named after USN DD in C.S. Forrester Short Stories)
DD 796 O'Leary March/44(historically Benham II, named after USN DD in William P Mack novels)
DD 797 McKenna July/44(historically Cushing II, named after "Sand Pebbles" author.
DD 798 Mack Apr/44 (historically Monssen II, named after author W.P. Mack)
DD 799 Caine Aug/44 (historically Jarvis II, named after fictitious Wouk DMS)
DD 800 Percival Aug/44 (historically Porter II, named after cancelled DD )
DD 801 Watson Sep/44 (historically Colhoun II, named after cancelled DD)
DD 802 Oswald A. Powers Sep/44 (historically Gregory II, named after incomplete DE)
DD 803 Groves Nov/44 (historically Little II, named after incomplete DE )

Allen M Sumner Class

DD 722 Keith Sep/44 (historically Barton II, named after main character in 'The Caine Mutiny" and incomplete DE)
DD 723 Alfred Wolf Sep/44 (historically Walke II, named after incomplete DE )
DD 724 Keppler Sep/44 (historically Laffey II, named after cancelled DE)
DD 725 Holman Sep/44 (historically O'Brien II, named after main character in "The Sand Pebbles")
DD 726 Gaynier Sep/44 (historically Meredith II, named after incomplete DE)
DD 727 Curtis W. Howard July/44 (historically DeHaven II, named after incomplete DE)
DD 744 John J. Vanburen July/44 (historically Blue II, named after incomplete DE)
DD 758 Paul G. Baker May/45 (historically Strong II, named after incomplete DE)

Allen M Sumner Minelayer

DM 33 (ex DD 772) Milton Lewis (historically Gwin II, named after incomplete DE)
DM 34 (ex DD 773) George M. Campell (historically Aaron Ward II, named after incomplete DE)

Gearing Class

DD 784 Rogers Blood (historically McKean II, named after cancelled DE)
DD 805 Carpellotti (historically Chevalier II, named after cancelled DE)
DD 877 Francovich (historically Perkins II, named after cancelled DE)

Edsall Class DEs

DE 129 Cramer July/45 (historically named Edsall II, named after incomplete DE)
DE 131 Ely July/45 (historically named Hammann II, named after incomplete DE)
DE 238 Delbert W. Halsey July/45 (historically named Stewart II, named after incomplete DE)

Buckley Class DEs

DE 154 Sheehan Jan/45 (historically named Sims II, named after incomplete DE)



Australian ship affected by respawn...

Tribal Class DD HMAS Kurnai (renamed Bataan)

Jeeze!! I have never seen that post Ron,...that's a lot of missing ships!!!!

[el cid again]

Why not forget the re-spawn completely and just have the ships arrive as they did historically. For people who worry about such things, give players the ability to re-name ships if they want to. Then if they want to have a Hornet II, you can just re-name one of the incoming CV's. Most people won't worry about it. But make sure that ships do arrive as they actually did, regardless of what they are called. And do away with Japanese Production (which only creates totally ahistoric OB's) and use actual production figures.

Please tell me HOW to "forget" such a rule? It is hard coded. Short of somehow getting to the top of the Matrix fix list, I see no theoretical way to actually do that. I considered filling all ship name slots - but I have concluded the respawn rule has an IMPORTANT function with respect to small vessels like minesweepers. We simply cannot put all the small vessels in the game - there are not that many slots!

[el cid again]

Well I don't know but wouldn't it be a good idea to extend the respawn rule to 10 ships instead of 5 ? In this case, if the US suffers very few losses-->few new ships, but if losses get heavy, it gets lots of free boats...

Once again, you are not talking about something we can do as modders - it is not a field we can set - unless you know something I do not. In which case - where is that field?