Admirals Edition Naval Thread

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Only if the scenario designer makes it so. In AE, the master scenario has respawn on, so no four extra ships.

So the US will continue to get gyped unless they run out and throw away 4 CV's at game start? This is really too bad..., it's one piece of non-sense I'd hoped AE could do away with.

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: VSWG
Furthermore, I think your estimate that an Allied player probably loses 1000 AKs in a PBEM is extremely exaggerated.

Here’s the 6/45 Intel screen from PZB’s old game. It wasn’t a CHS game, so there should probably be another 200 or so allied ships sunk from the SRA that aren’t sunk in stock games because they aren’t in stock.



With 1700+ allied ships sunk, I think it’s safe to assume the allies lost close to 1000 AK’s if not more.

Jim

1000 AK, I wouldn't bet on that. I don't know how many PTs and DDs he killed for instance [;)]
It is not to be understood and a critic, but Andy is somewhat careless when it comes to escort most of his convoies once they have unloaded, mainly because he isn't left with enough warships to escort them in and out the danger zones (that he couldn't silence, as he had to go straight for the Philippines, being "late on schedule"). So well a lot of merchant losses here are due to Andy's voluntary sacrifice, trading US tonnage for quicker success. I don't know how Andy thinks about it, but even though a lot of his transports are getting sent to death on purpose because he doesn't have the mean to escort them, he still has enough of them to go on with the offensive... What I mean is that sooner or later, it would be good for the US player to feel a little "stretched out" if, indeed, he decides that transports (and crews) are expandable. Historically, in the Pacific, they were not considered to be so, were they?

[Terminus]

And it does... Just not in the release version master scenario.

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Only if the scenario designer makes it so. In AE, the master scenario has respawn on, so no four extra ships.

Can I ask why the Australian cruiser respawn is still in the game? There is (as far as I can see) no basis in reality for this. The RAN lost 1 heavy cruiser and 2 light cruisers and had 1 heavy cruiser transferred in, the transferred ship already appears in the reinforcement list anyway.

If there was a basis for RAN respawn then surely it would make more sense for the respawned ships to appear as British light cruisers (Crown Colony class would be the most suitable, or maybe even Town class ships). At least this would have some sort of historical basis as the RCN and RNZN both operated Crown Colony cruisers during the war.

[RAM]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And it does... Just not in the release version master scenario.

I don't understand why not in the release version scenario. If I've read correctly all what has been posted here, AE's release scenarios will get the best OOB possible, so latter patches won't deal with the OOBs, and so won't force players to re-start games already being played. If so, then whatever OOB the release version scenario has, will be the definitive one. Meaning: the CV respawn rule will be there to stay (and...well, that sucks, the americans get four less CVs in the game unless they let four of his starting aircraft carriers to be sunk.)

I would dare to say this is a relatively easy thing to fix, 10 minutes of work with the editor (if that much), and deleting the CVs re-spawning ability from the game (so the toggle just controls the respawn of the cruisers and migdet subs, the CVs don't respawn but get their historically correct OOB, including the four Essex whatever happens to the historically sunk american CVs)...so why not taking the step and solving the issue for good?.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Can I ask why the Australian cruiser respawn is still in the game? There is (as far as I can see) no basis in reality for this. The RAN lost 1 heavy cruiser and 2 light cruisers and had 1 heavy cruiser transferred in, the transferred ship already appears in the reinforcement list anyway.

If there was a basis for RAN respawn then surely it would make more sense for the respawned ships to appear as British light cruisers (Crown Colony class would be the most suitable, or maybe even Town class ships). At least this would have some sort of historical basis as the RCN and RNZN both operated Crown Colony cruisers during the war.

I believe the original reason was to emulate the renaming of a US Baltimore class cruiser for HMAS Canberra. Note that the respawn of an Australian cruiser is to a US ship, not Australian.

In AE, the respawn of Australian cruisers has been tightened to only CA.

By the way, my own personal preference is for non respawn. We should start a betting pool on how longer after AE release the first non-respawn scenario appears.

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I believe the original reason was to emulate the renaming of a US Baltimore class cruiser for HMAS Canberra. Note that the respawn of an Australian cruiser is to a US ship, not Australian.

In AE, the respawn of Australian cruisers has been tightened to only CA.

By the way, my own personal preference is for non respawn. We should start a betting pool on how longer after AE release the first non-respawn scenario appears.

I never actually noticed that [X(][8|] It's still 'wrong' though...

As for the first user scenario without respawn, probably about 3 hours [:D] What I would like, but I realise that it is not going to happen is that the game keeps the correct number of hulls and for there to be the option of a new ship being renamed whilst she is being built.

[RAM]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

...and for there to be the option of a new ship being renamed whilst she is being built.

Just put them their actual names...with a II behind. So, Wasp II, Hornet II, Yorktown II...or name them using their initial assigned names...

and problem solved.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: RAM

ORIGINAL: Dixie

...and for there to be the option of a new ship being renamed whilst she is being built.

Just put them their actual names...with a II behind. So, Wasp II, Hornet II, Yorktown II...or name them using their initial assigned names...

and problem solved.

Amen! An Essex Class CV is an Essex Class CV. What difference does it make in gameplay if it's named Hornet II or the "Black Pearl"?

[witpqs]

So can the player just use the editor to turn off the re-spawn switch, or will he have to add all the 'withheld pending re-spawn' Essex CV's as well?

[Panther Bait]

As I understand the system they have described, an Modder would have to do both, remove all the CV repspawns and then add the missing Essexes to the ship reinforcement list. But from the sounds of the new editor, this doesn't sound like very much work at all.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: RAM

ORIGINAL: Dixie

...and for there to be the option of a new ship being renamed whilst she is being built.

Just put them their actual names...with a II behind. So, Wasp II, Hornet II, Yorktown II...or name them using their initial assigned names...

and problem solved.

Well, that is if you think CV respawning IS a problem. But that is merely one viewpoint, and it is not the only one.

I certainly do not agree. In fact I am a strong supporter of the rule. I believe it makes sense to include it and I would always play with it.

Andrew

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: RAM

ORIGINAL: Dixie

...and for there to be the option of a new ship being renamed whilst she is being built.

Just put them their actual names...with a II behind. So, Wasp II, Hornet II, Yorktown II...or name them using their initial assigned names...

and problem solved.

Well, that is if you think CV respawning IS a problem. But that is merely one viewpoint, and it is not the only one.

I certainly do not agree. In fact I am a strong supporter of the rule. I believe it makes sense to include it and I would always play with it.

Andrew

Let the AE Team do an internal huddle on this question - we will get back to you!

[RAM]

i'll be more than happy to accept it as the developers think it must be done, and of course I don't think my own opinion should stand over anyone else's...

however...

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


if you think CV respawning IS a problem. But that is merely one viewpoint, and it is not the only one.

I certainly do not agree. In fact I am a strong supporter of the rule. I believe it makes sense to include it and I would always play with it.

Andrew

This surprises me quite a bit coming from you, even more because I know all the excellent work you did for CHS (and assume you're doing now for AE ) in order to ,among many other things, bring the OOBs as near as possible to an historically accurate level.

By agreeing with this rule, you're agreeing with erasing the existance of four CV hulls in the US Navy, unless other four CVs are sunk before that.
That would make sense if those ships were ordered and built as replacements to the lost ships, but the fact is that, had the Lexington, Hornet, Wasp and Yorktown survived, those four ships would've existed anyway, just under other names.

I'm more than open towards another points of view, but I fail to understand how you can be a strong supporter of the CV respawn rule ,being as you are someone who clearly likes the game as close as the real thing as possible (even more seeing the degree of detail CHS has). Maybe I'm losing something here...

Anyway, I'm not trying to open a debate about it, just giving some ideas. This horse has been beating too many times in this board and would be senseless to argue about it again .
As I said, I'm more than happy to accept the rule as the development team wants to implement it (mostly because, being the horrible player I am, it's certified that I'll always lose a good number of my carriers in '42, so I'll always get those four CVs )

[witpqs]

One thing I find particularly silly about the carrier re-spawn rule is that if the US canceled any carrier hulls, it would have canceled the last 4 hulls produced, not some of the first few Essex's.

And of course, given the course of the war and the growing need for carrier air power as the war progressed, they would not have canceled the later Essex's when the time came to make that decision. I also do not believe they would have diverted 4 carriers to the Atlantic.

Just my own opinion - I hate the re-spawn rule, including for cruisers.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
I certainly do not agree. In fact I am a strong supporter of the rule. I believe it makes sense to include it and I would always play with it.
Andrew

WHY? A rule that REQUIRES one side to lose 4 ships it has..., just to get 4 ships it's already building? Your logic totally evades me, Andrew. The US was churning out Essex's on every available slipway during the war and even after it was over. Why should the game "steal" 4 of them and hold them "hostage" against good play? Can you explain why you "strongly support" this please?

[witpqs]

And furthermore, the team has rejected 'what if' issues for the AE campaign scenario - reject the 'what if' re-spawn!

[Shark7]

My opinion on this is that respawning should not be included. However, any ships that were cancelled should also be included and be left up to the player to produce them or not.

Here is the thing, given what happens during a game, a player may find he needs those additional ships that were in RL cancelled. The AI could always use the help, so we'll just assume it wants it.

This should go for both sides as well. Japanese ships that were planned but ended up cancelled should be available to produce. House rules can determine if the PBEM players want to allow them or not. The AI needs the help, and it gives someone playing against the AI more stuff to shoot at.

Just my opinion. [;)]

[GaryChildress]

Will Ioshima and Yasoshima be in the game. Historically they started life as Chinese cruisers, sunk and raised by the Japanese to appear late in the war in the Japanese Navy. Also there is the Thai navy with their gunboats and coastal defense ships.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
I certainly do not agree. In fact I am a strong supporter of the rule. I believe it makes sense to include it and I would always play with it.
Andrew

WHY? A rule that REQUIRES one side to lose 4 ships it has..., just to get 4 ships it's already building? Your logic totally evades me, Andrew. The US was churning out Essex's on every available slipway during the war and even after it was over. Why should the game "steal" 4 of them and hold them "hostage" against good play? Can you explain why you "strongly support" this please?

I should preface my remarks by saying they are only my personal opinions - NOT the official opinion of those working on AE.

The view I take is that the USA gave priority to those areas of production that it thought were necessary, depending on the situation in the war. Amd that they had the capability to change that priority as circumstances changed. They did not, in my opinion, cast their production schedules in stone at the start of the war and refuse to vary them regardless of their needs.

Taking this further, it is also my view that if the US had lost fewer CVs, they would have slowed later CV production more than they actually did (and it did slow later in the war). If they lost more CVs, it is my view that they would have made even more effort to complete and commission the CVs they did build earlier than they managed to do.

Removing respawning of CVs only makes sense if you believe that the USA would stick to a rigid, fixed building schedule from the start of the war without any later changes due to unfolding events or needs.

That is why CV respawning makes sense to me.

Andrew