Admirals Edition Naval Thread

[witpqs]

I disagree it requires presuming that level of rigidity. As I mentioned, if anything, the last 4 (or fewer) Essex's would have been the ones slowed or 'de'-spawned, not earlier ones that would make a much bigger difference to the war effort.

Also, alas, there is no provision for production or spawning to be modified based on the real conduct of the war going well or not - the capture of bases close to Japan for bombing and eventual invasion.

Yes, Andrew we are trying to convince you and win you over to our side of this argument! [:)]

Besides, having a 'spawning' rule makes it sound like there should be a bunch of baby flattops running around! [&:]

[rockmedic109]

When I first read about the respawn rule {back when WITP first came out}, I thought "Great!!".   Having a new carrier renamed for one that is lost happened IRL, and one more point of detail in the game. 

Perhaps a better {though likely impossible} way would be to just have the CV hulls built come in with the ability to change the new carriers' name? But this would nullify Andrew's argument about unnecessary CVs being built; admittedly an argument that I don't quite agree with. 

Perhaps naming "spawned" carriers after species of Salmon?

[okami]

The repawn rule makes no historical sense. Yes the US would have increased their carrier production in the face of catastrophic carrier loses, but historically they lost 4 of their original 6 carriers in 1942-43. Slipway limitations can not be ignored, they only had so many. Yes they could have built more but this is not modelled in the game. Respawned carriers are free, they have no cost and delay no other naval construction. If respawn stopped the construction of a like number of vessels then it would be more palidable to those of us who look at it's ahistorical effects.

[Gen.Hoepner]

I'd say the "Best" way to deal with this problem is giving the players the option to chose "respawn" on or off at the beginning of their games.
If set to "on" the respawn acts as it does right now.
If set to "off" the essex CVs come as scheldued, with other names, no matter if you lose the respwanable carriers or not.
 
Seems quite simple to me, but i do not know if the code allows you to do so without screwing up much things

[Gen.Hoepner]

Hi, probably has been aswered before, but have something changed with subs, wolfpack tactics and generally speaking the sub attacking routines (a part from the patrolling zones)?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: okami

The repawn rule makes no historical sense. Yes the US would have increased their carrier production in the face of catastrophic carrier loses, but historically they lost 4 of their original 6 carriers in 1942-43. Slipway limitations can not be ignored, they only had so many. Yes they could have built more but this is not modelled in the game. Respawned carriers are free, they have no cost and delay no other naval construction. If respawn stopped the construction of a like number of vessels then it would be more palidable to those of us who look at it's ahistorical effects.

NO, they are not "free". This is a totally mistaken assumption fostered by JFB's. CV's 10, 12, 15, and 18 were already laid down and being built under different names. What the programming SHOULD do is change the NAMES. But instead "2by3" programmed it so the US didn't get them at all if the original CV's weren't sunk! As if the US was going to complete them, then scrap them on the ways because the names weren't available. It was an idotic programming decision the day it was made, and it's still idiotic today.

And please, no non-sense about how the American's wouldn't have built as many if they hadn't lost the originals. They were still completing Essex Class CV's (and Midway's) after the war ended.

[okami]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: okami

The repawn rule makes no historical sense. Yes the US would have increased their carrier production in the face of catastrophic carrier loses, but historically they lost 4 of their original 6 carriers in 1942-43. Slipway limitations can not be ignored, they only had so many. Yes they could have built more but this is not modelled in the game. Respawned carriers are free, they have no cost and delay no other naval construction. If respawn stopped the construction of a like number of vessels then it would be more palidable to those of us who look at it's ahistorical effects.

NO, they are not "free". This is a totally mistaken assumption fostered by JFB's. CV's 10, 12, 15, and 18 were already laid down and being built under different names. What the programming SHOULD do is change the NAMES. But instead "2by3" programmed it so the US didn't get them at all if the original CV's weren't sunk! As if the US was going to complete them, then scrap them on the ways because the names weren't available. It was an idotic programming decision the day it was made, and it's still idiotic today.

And please, no non-sense about how the American's wouldn't have built as many if they hadn't lost the originals. They were still completing Essex Class CV's (and Midway's) after the war ended.

Actually while you are correct that the carriers in question were just renamed and that the game does not give you enough of the actual carriers. The opposite view is also correct. If you lose to many carriers then you get them for free. I would do away with respawn and have the correct OOB. Respawn is a AFB's wetdream. My argument is not that they would not have built more but that they did not have the slipways to build more simultaneously.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: okami
Actually while you are correct that the carriers in question were just renamed and that the game does not give you enough of the actual carriers. The opposite view is also correct. If you lose to many carriers then you get them for free. I would do away with respawn and have the correct OOB. Respawn is a AFB's wetdream. My argument is not that they would not have built more but that they did not have the slipways to build more simultaneously.

Right. Just what every Allied player dreams of..., launching his first six CV's straight into guaranteed disasters just to get two "freebies" in 1944. So much fun playing a year or more without a single CV in the Pacific to counter KB.

The real truth is that "re-spawn" is a "crock". Always has been, always will be. At least we can agree on that.

[Jim D Burns]

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

If you’re going to leave the CV respawn rule in, then please shorten the time to respawn to just six months or something. My biggest gripe about the rule is it takes almost as long as it took to build a new carrier to respawn one, as if one was ordered and laid down the day you lost the CV instead of one on the ways simply being renamed.

With a six month respawn at least the allies would get some new CV’s in 43 then. As it is now the rule simply gives Japan about a year and a half or more of no new allied CV’s arriving on map if he gets lucky and sinks most of the allied CV’s in 42.

I think most people would be willing to play with the rule if it wasn’t so all or nothing for allied CV power on map in games where disaster strikes the allies.

Personally I would prefer to simply axe any respawn rule and give the historical ships to the players with mark II names (can't use original names as they were given to later hulls). But if the team leaves in respawning then please shorten the time to respawn in the interest of keeping the game interesting in 1943.

Jim

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
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.

Hi Andrew,

I’d have to disagree with you on CV production being scaled down due to a lack of the need to replace losses. While they did cancel two Essex class CV’s in 1945, they finished 5 that never saw action. And even with the war over and dozens of fleet carriers already afloat, they went on to finish 4 more in 1946 and 1 in 1950.

http://ehistory.osu.edu/wwii/USNCV3.cfm

The US was already thinking ahead, the CV had become the source of power projection across the globe. And while the hulls were no longer really needed to finish the war with Japan, they were seen to be needed in the coming peace.

Most other hull types were dependant more on wartime events when it came to the scale of produced hulls, but fleet carriers were the new political big stick and fit into a totally different category all their own.

Jim

[bradfordkay]

My preference is to receive the historical ships at the historical time of arrival. The names can be adjusted (the original name of Yorktown II, I don't care).

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

Hi, probably has been aswered before, but have something changed with subs, wolfpack tactics and generally speaking the sub attacking routines (a part from the patrolling zones)?

Not directly, no. The patrol zones will change things and new damage routines will change things, but these will be more "indirect" than "direct".

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Re: ship production

Today you cannot halt construction of a ship until it begins costing you shipbuilding points. This has two downsides:

• even if you have no intention to complete a particular ship, that ship will always cost you for at least one day's construction before you can turn it off
• you must either visit the ship availability track every day or else keep a detailed list of when ships start burning points in order to minimize wastage of shipbuilding points

Has any consideration been given to making it possible to halt construction of a ship at any time, i.e. before it started burning SBPs? So an IJ player could go thru the ship availability list one time to turn off every one of the ships he was certain that he would never build?

Question apparently got lost in the AK discussion.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
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

Well, at least that's a reason. Can't say I agree with it (especially when as Jim Burns pointed out the US went ahead and completed 10 Essex's that didn't see action in WW II), but it's certainly a way of looking at it. Hopefully we can bring you "into the light" with enough persuasion.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Re: ship production

Today you cannot halt construction of a ship until it begins costing you shipbuilding points. This has two downsides:

• even if you have no intention to complete a particular ship, that ship will always cost you for at least one day's construction before you can turn it off
• you must either visit the ship availability track every day or else keep a detailed list of when ships start burning points in order to minimize wastage of shipbuilding points

Has any consideration been given to making it possible to halt construction of a ship at any time, i.e. before it started burning SBPs? So an IJ player could go thru the ship availability list one time to turn off every one of the ships he was certain that he would never build?

Question apparently got lost in the AK discussion.

I understand the usefulness as I myself find that I have to go back over and over again and turn off the subs and the AK and the AP, while I patiently wait for them to accumulate enough "days" to where they are "turn-off-a-ble". But, this would stop them from advancing period, even though pre-laid-down ships aren't burning points. So it would be a "never build" type of decision. Maybe as an alternative, we could just start all the "not-laid-downs" as "halted" and then you could go through the list and turn them on.

Well, we will cogitate on this a bit more, thx.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I disagree it requires presuming that level of rigidity.

I think that if there is no change at all to the CV production, regardless of the situation in the game, then that is definitely rigid.

As I mentioned, if anything, the last 4 (or fewer) Essex's would have been the ones slowed or 'de'-spawned, not earlier ones that would make a much bigger difference to the war effort.

That might have been the case, but unless the "respawn" delay is increased, this can't really be simulated by OOB changes alone.

Furthermore it is my belief that the earlier Essex's could also have been accelerated, although not by as much as the later ones, that took longer to build.

Also, alas, there is no provision for production or spawning to be modified based on the real conduct of the war going well or not - the capture of bases close to Japan for bombing and eventual invasion.

That is true. However I prefer a limited simulation of Allied production in place of no simulation at all.

Yes, Andrew we are trying to convince you and win you over to our side of this argument! [:)]

You are welcome to try.

Besides, having a 'spawning' rule makes it sound like there should be a bunch of baby flattops running around! [&:]

I agree! In fact "respawning" is a poor description. I would prefer something like "accelerated CV production".

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: okami

The repawn rule makes no historical sense. Yes the US would have increased their carrier production in the face of catastrophic carrier loses, but historically they lost 4 of their original 6 carriers in 1942-43. Slipway limitations can not be ignored, they only had so many.

That is true - slipway limitations cannot be ignored. However when I looked at the production data it seemed possible to account for increased CV production to account for up to 6 lost CVs, without requiring any extra slipways.

Yes they could have built more but this is not modelled in the game.

It is (in a crude way) if you use "respawn".

Respawned carriers are free, they have no cost and delay no other naval construction.

In the game that is true of all Allied ship production.

If respawn stopped the construction of a like number of vessels then it would be more palidable to those of us who look at it's ahistorical effects.

I believe that through accelerated build times it was possible to provide up to 6 extra CVs, without stopping the production of other ships. I don't see it as ahistorical at all.

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

I'd say the "Best" way to deal with this problem is giving the players the option to chose "respawn" on or off at the beginning of their games.
If set to "on" the respawn acts as it does right now.
If set to "off" the essex CVs come as scheldued, with other names, no matter if you lose the respwanable carriers or not.

I agree!

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Yes, Andrew we are trying to convince you and win you over to our side of this argument! [:)]

You are welcome to try.

You are feeling sleepy, very sleepy ...

[okami]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Yes, Andrew we are trying to convince you and win you over to our side of this argument! [:)]

You are welcome to try.

You are feeling sleepy, very sleepy ...

i would point out that hypnotising Andrew may decrease his work efficiency and thus delay AE. Mmmm..... Donut......[:-]