Admirals Edition Naval Thread

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

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

Interesting points, Jim, but I still believe that the number of CVs afloat would have been taken into account during the war. I assume that the US Navy would have had a figure of how many CVs they wanted in service after the war (as well as during it), and built accordingly. Which means the fewer sunk the fewer that needed to be built to reach the desired numbers.

The fact that some were cancelled shows that they were not just blindly charging ahead with a fixed production schedule, building every CV as fast as they could.

Andrew

[KahunaPete]

Aww that's too bad...that the data limit won't include German vessels

I just finished reading the book HMAS Sydney and the mystery surrounding her sinking by the German raider ship HSK Kormoran off the Western Australian seacoast in Nov 1941.

I'm still not so sure how a cruiser was destroyed by a German merchant raider.

No doubt some sort of subterfuge or blind bad luck caused the destruction of this ship.

I figure if one German merchant ship could do that to an Allied cruiser...imagine what can a fleet of German subs do in the Indian ocean [X(]

[akdreemer]

Okay, if this was already discussed then direct me to the post. My concern is how will WITP:AE address the issue of barrel wear and the need for relining? In larger caliber guns this is a real issue. For instance, the USN 16"/45 Mk 6 was good for about 400 rounds before the barrel was in need of relining. Relining this gun involved pulling the gun from the turret then shipping the gun to a naval ordnance center where the liner would be replaced. Obviously this takes a considerable amount of time. A possible solution might be to count rounds fired and then after the relining total is reached the guns would be disabled? Another solution would be to ingore this problem? Finding a way to incorporate this would go a long way towards eliminating the revloving door shore bombardments.

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: 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!

Hi Andrew

If you agree, can we have this in the initial release please? It seems to satisfy all sides of the argument. I personally would much rather have the missing CVs in 1943 when I really need them...

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: KahunaPete
I figure if one German merchant ship could do that to an Allied cruiser...imagine what can a fleet of German subs do in the Indian ocean [X(]

Wasn't one "German merchant ship", it was one heavily-armed and well-crewed German Merchant Raider which attacked with suprise and at close range resulting in BOTH ships being fatally damaged and sinking. One of it's "sister ships" was sunk similarly in a gun duel with the Liberty Ship Stephen B. Hopkins..., which had only one 4" gun to take on the German's 5.9's and TT's. Might as well say "imagine what a fleet of Liberty Ships could have done to the Tirpitz."

As to what a "fleet" of German Subs could do..., not too much unless a couple of well-stocked German Submarine Tenders could make it through to Singapore to support them (Good luck with that by 1942). The Japanese could supply fuel..., but spare German parts and German torpedoes they didn't have. Japanese Subs could have been a royal pain..., but the Japs didn't chose to use them that way.

[Chad Harrison]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Interesting points, Jim, but I still believe that the number of CVs afloat would have been taken into account during the war. I assume that the US Navy would have had a figure of how many CVs they wanted in service after the war (as well as during it), and built accordingly. Which means the fewer sunk the fewer that needed to be built to reach the desired numbers.

The fact that some were cancelled shows that they were not just blindly charging ahead with a fixed production schedule, building every CV as fast as they could.

Andrew

I was thinking about this last night and came across an interesting thought: how many infantry divisions did the Japanease put together towards the end of the war to compensate for the divisions totally destroyed up to that point in the war?

These divisions are included in the game without any need for the Japanease army to take enough losses to merit their need. While they certainly would have been formed regardless of what had happened over the course of the war, in reality the need for them was much greater due to the tremendous losses throughout the war with total loss on a number of divisions. Yet the Japanease player gets them on the same historical date that they arrived regardless of how realitively badly they are needed in each WitP game.

In my opinion, the same should apply to the Essex carriers (and heavy/light cruisers for that matter): they arrive on their historical date regardless of losses. Yes the need for them was greater in reality due to losses, but a player should not feel like they need to get the Wasp sunk so they can trade her in for a much more usefull carrier. Just use their originally planned names, or Yorktown II.

Just some thoughts. Such a minor gripe compared to how great everything is looking for AE!

Chad

[msieving1]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


The fact that some were cancelled shows that they were not just blindly charging ahead with a fixed production schedule, building every CV as fast as they could.

I don't think that really follows. One Midway class carrier was cancelled in 1943 because there was no building slip available. 6 Essex and 2 Midway class were cancelled Mar 28, 1945 before any construction was started. Iwo Jima and Reprisal were started, and cancelled August 11, 1945.

Up until 1945, the US was building carriers to the limits of its capacity. More carriers could not have been built without sacrificing other types of ships. The ships that were cancelled would not have been available before 1947, at the earliest.

[Ron Saueracker]

Well, I think everyone knows my position on the ill advised respawn rule since I've arguably griped the most about it and made a non respawn scenario with all the missing ships, original names and some with fictitious names which never had a non "in honour of" name to begin with. I can't understand why the non respawn scenario won't be the main release scenario as it is the most accurate. I also can't fathom why a mechanism which was included to tackle a basic name duplication issue (not some far fetched and unwarranted what if production capacity explanation) yet completely porks the OOB (all the ships that were historically named after sunk ships get ripped from history and only CVs, CAs, CLs can be added if sunk but totally at the wrong time, DDs, SSs etc are gone forever) is a sacred cow issue. Get rid of it and develop a way for ALL ships to be included in the historical building queue (all with their initial names or no name at all) and develop a way for ships within it to assume (randomly perhaps?) the name of a sunken vessel. Maybe even allow players to rename ships in the building queue. But please don't perpetuate a grossly mistaken design feature like the respawn feature. It is an indefensible design approach which needs to be culled.

Here is the list of corrections made for a CHS non respawn scenario. Does not include the missing CV airgroups but these were added in the scenario as well.

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)

Four Essexs in the game arrive early so need to be moved back to original dates.


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)


Link to pertinent thread...

Non Respawn CHS Scen

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson



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

Well, as I said above, the AE team members responsible for making the decision are huddling on the issue, we will announce our decision once we have it. But be aware, as has been mentioned, which ever way we go with this, it would take someone about 5-10 minutes to create a different scenario implementing the opposite decision. And I am only talking about CV respawning here. I believe all the other ships Ron mentioned are in the OOB already. I also think respawning for some smaller classes, like barges, will be in place regardless of the CV decision. So really, the only question on the table is the CV decision and we will get back to you once we've finished our huddle.

[CaptDave]

In my mind, whatever solution the team comes up with to the respawn issue should be considered interim for AE. It seems to me that the "best" solution is clearly a deferral to WitP II, but that is to give the Allied player control over production (with some degree of randomness to reflect requirements in the other theaters).

[NormS3]

Is there a chance that the AE team could create a way for those people (including me) to alter the name of a given ship? This could alleviate the whole spawning issue and allow allied players a way to get their cariers back.

[Shark7]

Allied production should probably be at least partially under player control. At least ship production...with all the cancelled platforms available, and the player having to decide which to keep or cancel (after all, only so many shipyards, no matter how you look at it).

Japanese players should have a similar option. After all, there were up to 11 additional carriers planned as early as 1942, but never laid down. There were at least 15 more Shimakaze DDs planned, but cancelled due to how poorly the war was going and so on. An additional Yamato class that was 30% complete (Hull #111) when scrapped in 1942.

Just as the US should get the additional platforms without having to deliberately lose ships to force the respawn, the Japanese player should get the option to build ships that were cancelled if they are doing well enough to keep the shipyards supplied.

Also, the player should have some part to play in deciding how ships upgrade. IE maybe I want to complete Shinano as a Battleship. Or perhaps I don't want to convert Ise and Hyuga to have those rediculous looking little flight decks on the back (oh trust me I don't want those decks, talk about a waste of a good BB).

My whole thing is, even though it is a historical scenario, I the player am affecting how it goes. In that case I should have some input on what gets into the field or not. If I am doing well enough, there is no reason for me to convert the Ise or Hyuga. There is no reason for me not to build 4 additional Essex rather than having to lose them to get them as 'respawns'.

[RevRick]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

1) Will the Japanese player be able to convert Nisshin or Mizunho to light carriers?
1a) Will the AI be able to do this?
2) Will historically sunk ships have further upgrades available in later years?
3) Will the re-incarnation of Allied cruisers continue? Will there be a limit to how many cruisers can be recreated?
4) If US carriers are not sunk, will the replacements enter service under alternative names?
5) Will replacement US carriers have airgroups?
6) Will the AI understand the difference between normal and replacement carrier air groups on US escort carriers?

1+1a): No. The Japs didn't look seriously at this.
2): Yes.
3): Respawn is still in the current master scenario.
4): No.
5+6): Not sure what you mean by these questions?

Hey,. You guys are leaving the biggest PIA in the game still in to a few of us. Those bloody hulls would have been there if no carrier had been sunk. What gives?

[Tom Hunter]

Several people asked about surface combat, and one even asked about "the Tom Hunter effect." I am not sure if I should be flattered or horiffied.

Does the team plan to look at the surface combat model? Have you read the analysis I posted. Do you think it is broken, or do you think it is fine?


In your own games do you one TFs of one BB to get the main battery to fire?

This was a game breaker for me, though obviously plenty of people have no problem with it. But I am curious, and I don't seem to be alone.

On the other hand, if you don't look at it you are saving both of us a lot of time. [:D]

Tom

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Several people asked about surface combat, and one even asked about "the Tom Hunter effect." I am not sure if I should be flattered or horiffied.

That was me. [:D] Welcome back! [:)]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Several people asked about surface combat, and one even asked about "the Tom Hunter effect." I am not sure if I should be flattered or horiffied.

Does the team plan to look at the surface combat model? Have you read the analysis I posted. Do you think it is broken, or do you think it is fine?


In your own games do you one TFs of one BB to get the main battery to fire?

This was a game breaker for me, though obviously plenty of people have no problem with it. But I am curious, and I don't seem to be alone.

On the other hand, if you don't look at it you are saving both of us a lot of time. [:D]

Tom

Tom, sorry to disappoint you, but we decided fairly early on, that changing the surface system would be a complete rewrite and thus it would have to wait for WITP_II. One area we did improve however, was the damage system, so this does change things a bit, we are still testing to see how much.

[Captain Cruft]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

In your own games do you one TFs of one BB to get the main battery to fire?

Tom, sorry to disappoint you, but we decided fairly early on, that changing the surface system would be a complete rewrite and thus it would have to wait for WITP_II. One area we did improve however, was the damage system, so this does change things a bit, we are still testing to see how much.

Did anyone ever test whether giving the main guns more than 9 ammo made any difference to this? I always suspected it would ...

[SargeantTex]

I was wondering if the operations fatigue for ships is going to be revised I would send  carrier strikes to hit the marshalls or gilberts and when my carriers got back to pearl all my ships even carriers would have 2-3 fatigue points and have their speed down a couple of knots. I dont remember reading anything about ships needing refits for short operations like this,and I was using cruise speed.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie
Hi Andrew

If you agree, can we have this in the initial release please? It seems to satisfy all sides of the argument. I personally would much rather have the missing CVs in 1943 when I really need them...

It isn't up to me. I am just the map guy. I just like getting involved in the "CV respawn" debate when people either claim that it is unrealistic, or impossible in the Real World, to have "CV respawn". I accept neither proposition and enjoy the debate!

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: msieving1
Up until 1945, the US was building carriers to the limits of its capacity. More carriers could not have been built without sacrificing other types of ships. The ships that were cancelled would not have been available before 1947, at the earliest.

The Essex class CVs built at the end of the war had build times (to commissioning) that were a fair bit longer - months longer - than earlier ships. I don't believe that the USA, late in the war, was incapable of accelerating ship production to match earlier build rates (for Essex CVs) if it really, REALLY wanted to. My opinion about the USA war economy is not that pessimistic.

Andrew