Fair and Balanced...

[el cid again]

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.

When entering the historical ships for historical completion dates, I am forced to do this - otherwise we end up with two ships with the same name at the same time. But the respawn rule remains - and so if a ship is sunk you may get a reincarnation of it later. I have no big problem with it - although possibly one might argue about the time delay period.
Since I cannot fix it, and since it is not a big issue, I don't expect Matrix to fix it either. But if we do a WITP II - it is a candidate for some change - maybe.

[el cid again]

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

THAT we can fix. Look for it in RHS. Or if you want to lift the ships into your own mod, let me know.

But if you really need ALL the USN carriers you are not a very skilled player - talk about overkill!

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

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

THAT we can fix. Look for it in RHS. Or if you want to lift the ships into your own mod, let me know.

But if you really need ALL the USN carriers you are not a very skilled player - talk about overkill!

It's War Dammit![:D]

[ChezDaJez]

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

They weren't missing, just simply renamed after ships that had been already sunk in the war. The total number of hulls built IRL didn't change.

Chez

[YankeeAirRat]

I am sorry, I missed something here [&:], but didn't the whole "US carrier spawn" issue get argued over into infinity during the beta testing and early on when the game first came out?

I thought this thread initially started out as a comment on whether there was bias to favor one of the sides in an attempt to give either that side a chance to win the game?

I still believe that in this game and every other historical war simulation you can not factor in the real world portion of luck(fate or whatever you want to call it) that seems to get involved in human interactions since day one. I think that the way the "dice" roll in this game is kind of suspect, but it is all I really have to fight all of the Pacific War during world war 2. Not just the battle's of Midway and Coral sea or the carrier battles around the 'Canal. So I am thankful for this game to be out here, even with the bugs and other oddities that it has.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

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

They weren't missing, just simply renamed after ships that had been already sunk in the war. The total number of hulls built IRL didn't change.

Chez

One of the questions is how should designers try to model strategic decisions by people like Admiral King that may be out of the players control.

As I pointed out in my quote by King the US did not simply "BUILD BUILD BUILD" as another poster stated. They did try and manage their resources. So yes.. the respawn may not be very eloquent...but it does serve to introduce the concept of redirecting resources based on need.

Perhap one or two of the Baltimores are not built if the US does not lose one or two cruisers. Perhaps an Essex is delayed because the Yorktown doesn't sink.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat

I am sorry, I missed something here [&:], but didn't the whole "US carrier spawn" issue get argued over into infinity during the beta testing and early on when the game first came out?

I thought this thread initially started out as a comment on whether there was bias to favor one of the sides in an attempt to give either that side a chance to win the game?

I still believe that in this game and every other historical war simulation you can not factor in the real world portion of luck(fate or whatever you want to call it) that seems to get involved in human interactions since day one. I think that the way the "dice" roll in this game is kind of suspect, but it is all I really have to fight all of the Pacific War during world war 2. Not just the battle's of Midway and Coral sea or the carrier battles around the 'Canal. So I am thankful for this game to be out here, even with the bugs and other oddities that it has.

Unfortunately not all of us were around for the beta version.

With the hope, well now it is more than a hope it is a definite idea at this point, that a WitP II may be developed I decided to start this thread as a place to air greviances on perceived biases in the game.

Perhaps with rational debates on the forum some of these ideas may coalesce and be implemented in WitP II. One of those happens to be the repawn issue...

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: treespider
Perhap one or two of the Baltimores are not built if the US does not lose one or two cruisers. Perhaps an Essex is delayed because the Yorktown doesn't sink.

I agree. Although I note that Ron's list includes quite a lot of smaller ships that were in service in real life, but missing from the game due to a clash of names. That is separate from the "respawn" issue as the smaller classes don't respawn. Those "missing" ships should probably be added.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: treespider
Perhap one or two of the Baltimores are not built if the US does not lose one or two cruisers. Perhaps an Essex is delayed because the Yorktown doesn't sink.

I agree. Although I note that Ron's list includes quite a lot of smaller ships that were in service in real life, but missing from the game due to a clash of names. That is separate from the "respawn" issue as the smaller classes don't respawn. Those "missing" ships should probably be added.

Agree.

[Feinder]

Not to be picky (but since everyone else is), the DB could care less about a ship's name.

There's no index on the name. The index is the ship ID number. You could have every ship in WitP named "Enterprise" if you wanted to. It would be confusing for you (the player), but the engine doesn't give a crap. So I "respectfully disagree" that the ships with duplicate names were left out for the sake of the engine.

The engine doesn't care. They were not left out because the engine couldn't handle it. It most certainly can.

-F-

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: treespider
Perhap one or two of the Baltimores are not built if the US does not lose one or two cruisers. Perhaps an Essex is delayed because the Yorktown doesn't sink.

I agree. Although I note that Ron's list includes quite a lot of smaller ships that were in service in real life, but missing from the game due to a clash of names. That is separate from the "respawn" issue as the smaller classes don't respawn. Those "missing" ships should probably be added.

I think the respawn issue came about to somehow "get around" the awkward habit the USN has of renaming ships immediately after their loss. That they chose to do as they did was most unfortunate. But yes, the ships should be in. Don Bowen pretty much figured out a way to make a workable non respawn version (something about utilising all the slots meant for replacement/respawned ships I think) and I'd love to get the details so a non respawn CHS can be released. Otherwise, both players would have to keep track of every respawned ship and keep it in harbor.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: treespider
Perhap one or two of the Baltimores are not built if the US does not lose one or two cruisers. Perhaps an Essex is delayed because the Yorktown doesn't sink.


I agree. Although I note that Ron's list includes quite a lot of smaller ships that were in service in real life, but missing from the game due to a clash of names. That is separate from the "respawn" issue as the smaller classes don't respawn. Those "missing" ships should probably be added.


Agree.

There has been a slot issue - but I have fixed that. Someone send me the list - and they are in.

[el cid again]

Not to be picky (but since everyone else is), the DB could care less about a ship's name.

There's no index on the name. The index is the ship ID number. You could have every ship in WitP named "Enterprise" if you wanted to. It would be confusing for you (the player), but the engine doesn't give a crap. So I "respectfully disagree" that the ships with duplicate names were left out for the sake of the engine.

The engine doesn't care. They were not left out because the engine couldn't handle it. It most certainly can.

-F-

You are correct. In fact, there ARE duplicated ship names right now. See I-1 in Japan. No problem. [Of course, mostly the original one gets sunk. IRL it got relegated to training.]

[el cid again]

I think the respawn issue came about to somehow "get around" the awkward habit the USN has of renaming ships immediately after their loss. That they chose to do as they did was most unfortunate. But yes, the ships should be in. Don Bowen pretty much figured out a way to make a workable non respawn version (something about utilising all the slots meant for replacement/respawned ships I think) and I'd love to get the details so a non respawn CHS can be released. Otherwise, both players would have to keep track of every respawned ship and keep it in harbor.

You are right - if ALL slots are full the code skips respawn. But when I tried to go that way - it is easy now so many name slots are full - I found we need respawn for minor vessels. Otherwise you run out of minesweepers, subchasers, PT boats, landing craft. There is no way to have all of these in the database at one time - there are not enough slots for them alone.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I think the respawn issue came about to somehow "get around" the awkward habit the USN has of renaming ships immediately after their loss. That they chose to do as they did was most unfortunate. But yes, the ships should be in. Don Bowen pretty much figured out a way to make a workable non respawn version (something about utilising all the slots meant for replacement/respawned ships I think) and I'd love to get the details so a non respawn CHS can be released. Otherwise, both players would have to keep track of every respawned ship and keep it in harbor.

You are right - if ALL slots are full the code skips respawn. But when I tried to go that way - it is easy now so many name slots are full - I found we need respawn for minor vessels. Otherwise you run out of minesweepers, subchasers, PT boats, landing craft. There is no way to have all of these in the database at one time - there are not enough slots for them alone.

I don't think we need the respawn for minor vessels, there are tons of them already. Perhaps not having a respawn feature will curb some of the universal banzai usage of naval vessels. I hate losing even the smallest and never send them on pointless or forlorn hope missions..

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: 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!

I was thinking more of WITP II..., but if Don and Joe can figure a way around some of the "hard code" that handcuffs the original, great. As for slots, I could do with a few less PTs and Landing craft if it meant getting the "real ships" that are stuck in "re-spawn limbo". Not blaiming you Cid..., the "hard code" wall seems to have stopped quite a few attempts at "fixes".

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
...I note that Ron's list includes quite a lot of smaller ships that were in service in real life, but missing from the game due to a clash of names. That is separate from the "respawn" issue as the smaller classes don't respawn. Those "missing" ships should probably be added.

I think the respawn issue came about to somehow "get around" the awkward habit the USN has of renaming ships immediately after their loss. That they chose to do as they did was most unfortunate. But yes, the ships should be in.

Ron, I wasn't talking about adding in ships from the groups that respawn. I was talking about adding ships from the smaller classes that don't respawn. It is a separate issue.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
...I note that Ron's list includes quite a lot of smaller ships that were in service in real life, but missing from the game due to a clash of names. That is separate from the "respawn" issue as the smaller classes don't respawn. Those "missing" ships should probably be added.

I think the respawn issue came about to somehow "get around" the awkward habit the USN has of renaming ships immediately after their loss. That they chose to do as they did was most unfortunate. But yes, the ships should be in.

Ron, I wasn't talking about adding in ships from the groups that respawn. I was talking about adding ships from the smaller classes that don't respawn. It is a separate issue.

You don't want the historically built but omitted ships? Or have them and smaller classes to fill out the database to eliminate respawn slots?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Feinder
There's no index on the name. The index is the ship ID number. You could have every ship in WitP named "Enterprise" if you wanted to. It would be confusing for you (the player), but the engine doesn't give a crap. So I "respectfully disagree" that the ships with duplicate names were left out for the sake of the engine.

You are correct, the name doesn't matter as far as the game engine is concerned. But I haven't seen anyone claim that the ships with duplicated names were left out because of the game engine. My guess is that they were left out because the game designers thought it would help to avoid confusion in players.

[el cid again]

I don't think we need the respawn for minor vessels, there are tons of them already. Perhaps not having a respawn feature will curb some of the universal banzai usage of naval vessels. I hate losing even the smallest and never send them on pointless or forlorn hope missions..

It is literally impossible. There are not enough slots to include them all - or even nearly all. And I once ran out of minesweepers - ugly! That was in UV without a respawn feature. This issue applies to many types - imagine the Allies out of landing craft! The war would end in Japanese victory in spite of massive superiority on the Allied side in everything else.