The new model CVE's...

Dean Robb · Post by **Dean Robb** » Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:18 am

are they just airplane transport ships? I've got the Long Island CVE, but it doesn't come with an air wing?

Howling H R Bryars · Post by **Howling H R Bryars** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 7:36 pm

Some of the CVEs you receive will have air groups assigned, while others will not. This is partly due to game limitations on the number of air groups. It is also somewhat historical, as many CVEs were used primarily as aircraft transports and replenishment ships.

I personally hope that WITP gives us more granular control.
(More! MORE! MORE!)

Dean Robb · Post by **Dean Robb** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 4:34 am

Concur. I finally did get some CVE's with airgroups, so it kinda answered my question

. I'm in favor, though, of the group CVE's. It's easy to forget that PW is an operational-level game and get into too much micromanagement.

I find individual CVE's cost too much in terms of air groups for my liking. I've got fighter groups out the wazoo but am desperately short of bombing groups - a very unhistorical imbalance, IMO. Not t mention the loss of DD/MCS groups that the extra ship slots cause.

Jeremy Pritchard · Post by **Jeremy Pritchard** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 7:36 pm

Actually, only RN CVE's have some air groups with entirely fighters. And this WAS historical.

The main reason for getting rid of the Group CVE's was because when ships were grouped together, they sent out their air groups as one, resulting in CAP and strikes from a USN CVE group being more powerful then a USN CV group! THis is primarily because groups act like one single carrier, and send out fighters in groups of 60, instead of groups of 20 (if there were 3 CVE's in a group).

Also, most CVE's were used as ferry transports that had no air complement and just shuttled around USMC groups from island to island.

The next version will probably have CVE's back in groups, so we can eliminate the sunk ship replacement factor. However, no group will be larger then 2 ships per group, which will hopefully mitigate their power.

Also, the inclusion of individual CVE's did nothing to limit the number of Destroyers, or their accurate representation in the game. They did cut down on some MCS, but these were already over-represented in the game.

Dean Robb · Post by **Dean Robb** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 7:35 pm

Kewl on the groups of CVE's. I can hang with a group of two, no problem. I just keep remembering Taffy 3 on the issue of "ferry only".

The fighter group comment was referencing the slots used by the individual CVE's airgroups - they seem to be using up a disproportinate number airgroup slots, leading to a (percieved) imbalance in LBA fighter/bomber groups.

I seem to recall from the old PacWar list the CVE airgroup issue being raised a few years back, and Grigsby had said that there was a coding reason for them flying en masse instead of individually...can't remember what, exactly, the reason was..but that it had to work that way.

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:07 am

What about making all of one class say Bouge the ships without air groups and other classes the ones with air groups so it will be easy to remember which ones to use as support groups (taffys) and which to use as replenish TFs??

the current hodge podge scatters my mind too much when planning TFs.

Jap Lance · Post by **Jap Lance** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 12:03 pm

And a new icon for the Ferry Transport CVE's, with a small aircraft on top or something like that?.

Jeremy Pritchard · Post by **Jeremy Pritchard** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 8:28 pm

I like the idea about icons for ferry aircraft. One way in knowing wether or not your CVE has a group is that all those with aircraft are located in ahead in the list then those that do not have aircraft.

Well, I managed to make CVE's back into groups of 2. This cut the numbers in half, so it is easier to keep track of your CVE's. All of the Casablanca Class CVE's that have aircraft are in groups of 2, however, the Commencement Bay and Sangammon class CVE's retained their individual names and individual ships. I did this because they were very large CVE's, like their Japanese Counterparts (10 000 t +). They had aircraft capacities in the 30's, so they can have a lot of aircraft per individual ship.

I did this because of 2 reasons:

1. Too many CVE's. Many people said that all of the CVE's cluttered up their ports, making them very annoying. Now, with about 1/2 the number of CVE's, they should be more flexible and not as powerful then the original PacWar had them.

2. To free up space for a better USN ship replacement system. As it stood, when a USN ship was sunk it was replaced by a modern counterpart (i.e. any USN CV's sunk will come back as Essex class, etc...). However, unless you maange to lose carriers at exact historic times, you are either being cheated, or are cheating actual production. If you should not lose any CV's in 1942-43, then the actual Essex CV's that were produced in 43 (and historically used the sunk ship's names) would just vanish.

Now, I added 4 new Essex CV's to replace the historic ones (Yorktown II, Wasp II, Hornet II and Lexington II) with ships using their pre-renamed names (Oriskany, Kearsage, B.H. Richard and Cabot). The USN will also get Cruisers that replaced sunk counterparts.

So, in 3.1 you will not have sunk ship replacements (so any USN CV lost, is a CV lost, without an inevitable replacement) but there will be more USN CV's in the actual game. So, it will now be in the US player's benefit to keep their ships afloat, since they will not have the conselation in any ship sunk will be replaced in a few turns by an improved and modern counterpart.

This is both a benefit and a hinderance to the US player. If they lose a lot of CV's, they could be in trouble. This also aids the Japanese player, since they no longer have to feel that any US CV sunk will just come back in a few turns to ravage them some more. However, if the US player manages to lose less then the 4 historical CV losses, then in 1945 their CV fleet will be even stronger then it historically was!

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 6:28 am

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
I like the idea about icons for ferry aircraft. One way in knowing wether or not your CVE has a group is that all those with aircraft are located in ahead in the list then those that do not have aircraft.

Well, I managed to make CVE's back into groups of 2. This cut the numbers in half, so it is easier to keep track of your CVE's. All of the Casablanca Class CVE's that have aircraft are in groups of 2, however, the Commencement Bay and Sangammon class CVE's retained their individual names and individual ships. I did this because they were very large CVE's, like their Japanese Counterparts (10 000 t +). They had aircraft capacities in the 30's, so they can have a lot of aircraft per individual ship.

I did this because of 2 reasons:

1. Too many CVE's. Many people said that all of the CVE's cluttered up their ports, making them very annoying. Now, with about 1/2 the number of CVE's, they should be more flexible and not as powerful then the original PacWar had them.

The USN will also get Cruisers that replaced sunk counterparts.

So, in 3.1 you will not have sunk ship replacements (so any USN CV lost, is a CV lost, without an inevitable replacement) but there will be more USN CV's in the actual game. So, it will now be in the US player's benefit to keep their ships afloat, since they will not have the conselation in any ship sunk will be replaced in a few turns by an improved and modern counterpart.

This is both a benefit and a hinderance to the US player. If they lose a lot of CV's, they could be in trouble. This also aids the Japanese player, since they no longer have to feel that any US CV sunk will just come back in a few turns to ravage them some more. However, if the US player manages to lose less then the 4 historical CV losses, then in 1945 their CV fleet will be even stronger then it historically was!

1. A different icon is a GREAT idea for easy recognition of ferry CVEs.

2. Too many CVEs - are the complainers crazy?

You can NEVER have too many carriers.

3. I think that when people complained about the reduced MCS / destroyer complements was that they were using up more of the 15 slots allowed in a TF for CVEs and therefore had fewer slots for the MCS / DD / APA, etc. If before you could get 6-9 CVEs in 3 slots you would need up to nine slots for the same number of CVEs with the new version - I think that was the complaint, so making them in 2s helps and seems reasonable. I don't see the problem since I never used up all 15 slots on CVE TFs before - combat TFs - that's a different story full to the max - with 5 DD groups per TF.

4. Will cruisers and destroyers still be replaced if sunk (which by the way was supposed to take 1 year not a few turns)?

5. Will LSTs re-appear?:p

Jeremy Pritchard · Post by **Jeremy Pritchard** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 6:42 am

Cruisers and destroyers will not reappear when sunk. HOWEVER, there will be added historical destroyers and cruisers added to the game. The game will assume that NO vessel will be sunk, and ships will keep their original names. The way the old game went, the USN would either get ripped off if not enough of their ships are sunk (i.e., they will get less Cleveland Crusiers then historical if the USS Atlanta was not sunk), or they would get too many ships (i.e., if they lose 6 Carriers, miraculously 2 more Essex CV's appear from phantom shipyards to replace them!

).

I have decided that LST's will not appear in the game.

Here are my reasons...

1. 1000+ were made and used.

2. They could carry around 140 troops (compared to APA's which now replace them that could carry 5000 troops).

3. Like MTB's, they were not used for transporting troops from the US West Coast to the Philippines. They did make longer voyages, but were primarily assualt vessels. Like landing craft, I feel that LST's are abstracted to be working in concert with APA's. You do not see them, but they are there, hidden.

So, it is either that you get 500+ LST's, with a capacity of 20 (maximum) or they are abstracted with APA's (of which there are around 100+ that do the same thing as LST's (have same readiness levels) with a capacity of 200-250, along with no historical range limitations. In 3.0, APA's will carry the same amount of troops as LST's, with far less micro management problems (moving around enough LST's so they could lift a Regiment).

IntellWeenie · Post by **IntellWeenie** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 7:35 pm

I think making different icons for ferry CVEs would be too much trouble, since you would need to make a separate ship class just to use the other icon. That means 6 ship classes that have to be created and the appropriate ships modified.

An easier way I found is to just rename the ships that don't have an air group. I used the editor and added an asterisk "*" to the end of the ships' names to denote that they don't have an air group. (Ships 110-129, 133-140, 151-164) If you go this route, check to make sure you keep the ship names under 13 characters.

stretch · Post by **stretch** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 11:14 pm

Jeremy,

In v2.x troops landing off LST's had higher readiness when unloading and going into combat than troops coming off AP's. Is this gone now? Used to be troops loaded onto LST's at 99 readiness landed at 49, IIRC, and off AP's were reduced to something in the 20's.

Denniss · Post by **Denniss** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 1:05 am

Originally posted by stretch
Jeremy,

In v2.x troops landing off LST's had higher readiness when unloading and going into combat than troops coming off AP's. Is this gone now? Used to be troops loaded onto LST's at 99 readiness landed at 49, IIRC, and off AP's were reduced to something in the 20's.

That's why Jeremy created the APA - Attack transporters .
IT's a big troop transport with many LST for landing operations .

stretch · Post by **stretch** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 1:07 am

ok so I totally missed everything important in this thread.. Guh. My bad.. thanks for being nice and not flaming my head off.

LargeSlowTarget · Post by **LargeSlowTarget** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 4:15 pm

Originally posted by IntellWeenie

An easier way I found is to just rename the ships that don't have an air group. I used the editor and added an asterisk "*" to the end of the ships' names to denote that they don't have an air group. (Ships 110-129, 133-140, 151-164) If you go this route, check to make sure you keep the ship names under 13 characters.

If you don't mind that planeless CVE also go nameless, you can redesignate them into 'AKV' (Auxiliary Aircraft ferry), avoiding the '13 characters'-restriction.

LargeSlowTarget · Post by **LargeSlowTarget** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 6:12 pm

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
I have decided that LST's will not appear in the game.

Of course I cannot remain silent on this topic...

1000+ LST were made and used - a double edged-sword: too many to be represented in PW, too many (i.e. so important & so typical for amphib assaults)to be left out... How many did actually serve in the PTO?

Troop-carrying capacity was restricted, but they could carry 20 tanks (that's why it is called LST) - this would mean a capacity of 400 in PW, if I'm not mistaken. [Unfortunately PW does not model the different requirements for transporting tanks, supplies or troops on ships (to load tanks on a liner converted into an APA doesn't make much sense - not much storage space for tanks, too awkward to unload in a haste - conversely to load troops on LSTs is a waste, too)]

LST are in fact assault vessels and were perhaps not used to transfer troops from CONUS to the Philippines, but they were used for 'long-distance shore-to-shore assaults' - being oceangoing vessels after all. I don't know offhand the longest distance LSTs traveled from staging area to assault target in one go, but it surely wasn't unimpressive. It is okay to abstract the smaller stuff (LCM, LCI, LCVP etc.) as working in concert with AP/APA types in PW, but LSTs are too big to be treated that way, IMO. Hell, they are bigger than DDs (4000 tons IIRC)!!

But after all, it is a matter of taste (or 'feel'). Do as you please, I'll find a way to edit LSTs back into my obc. No bad blood, mate.

Apart from the LST issue, I like most changes you have made in v2.3 and v3.o, and I'm looking forward to v3.1 with the odd 'USN sunk ship replacements' finally being discarded. Keep up the good work!

LST

P.S.:
Some other minor stuff: Three P-51 versions might be one too much (I would like to see the P-40N making it back into the obc instead), range 6 for the B-25 but only 4 for the P-38 seems odd, and I'm missing good old Arkansas off Iwo and Okinawa.

Jeremy Pritchard · Post by **Jeremy Pritchard** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 8:52 pm

I understand about the desire for LST's, since it is your intitials

There is already a problem about too much shipping and not enough shipyard points, and adding 1000 LST's will probably make this even worse.

I suggest, in fact I would like to see this more, is to have more people create their own variants/scenarios for the game. I fully support you making a LST variant along with any other changes you want, and post it! This will hopefully result in a lot more mods to suit individual needs.

I researched the P-40, and discovered that the P-40E was the most widly used variant in the Pacific War, while the P-40N was produced in large numbers, it was actually used primarily as an aircraft trainer. This is why I got rid of it.

The P-51 versions will be more specialized now. The P-51B will be faster, more manoverable and have a longer range than the P-47D. The P-51D is the long range escort, and the P-51H is the short range Fighter-Bomber.

The P-51B was created because it was used in large numbers in the CBI theatre, well before the P-51D saw service in the Pacific. I did not want the P-51D to show up too early, or the CBI theatre to be out a heavily used aircraft.

The P-40 was generally phased out of action as P-38's and P-47's entered the theatre. Some were still used by 1944, but were basically the same as the P-40E.

The P-38 now have slightly longer ranges, and the B-25 slightly less.

Also, a few weeks ago I added the Arkansas as a Nevada Class. Not happy about this, I created the Wyoming Class just so it can have its own 12" guns to batter Iwo.

showboat1 · Post by **showboat1** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 10:12 pm

Nice to hear the "Arky" will be back in the Pacific. I agree on excluding the LST's. Too any of the things clutter the game up. Different P-51 versions work for me as well.

IntellWeenie · Post by **IntellWeenie** » Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:14 pm

I'm finding that I have little or no use for all the gobs of non-air group-carrying CVEs that the allies get. I have only one TF that I use for ferrying A/C from the States and have used several for convoy escorts, but I still have about a dozen CVEs sitting in port unused (cluttering things up tremendously!)

In 3.1, could the number of these CVEs be reduced by making them multi-ship groups like DDs, MCSs, etc.? This would make them easier to manage and also free up some slots for other ships to be included in the game if needed. Even just grouping them in pairs would cut the number of units by 21 (Brit and US).

The new model CVE's...

The new model CVE's...

CVE Redux