Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships!

[eMonticello]

Has anyone pointed out that there were 26 Essex-class carriers that were laid and only 2 were cancelled?

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

This topic has been thrashed utterly to death. Everyone who's upset by this, please read this thread, then come back and we'll talk.[;)] Well, maybe tomorrow we'll talk.

[Twotribes]

So let me see if I have tis right..........

The Japanese should be allowed unrestricted submarine warfare, they should be allowed unrestricted attacks not based on actual events. Advances that were never contemplated for what ever reason. Aircraft builds ( via the scenario 26 version) that allow more and better aircraft then the Japanese built. Total hindsight to make attacks and plans based on what is known about allied lack of strength and allied build rates.

But even though in the other thread it was clearly shown that the space exsisted to start and build 24 essex by 1946 the US should be limited to 13 cause thats what they built? ( althouh that isnt true they built more than 13)

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
I should have said "some" Betas.

Thank you. I personally can't fathom the "spawning" feature. It basically "scraps" the ships historically named after those lost in the war. For example, if the US player is lucky or good enough to not lose the CVs Lexington (CV2), Yorktown (CV5), Wasp (CV7), Hornet (CV8) and many other ships, he/she is "punished" by having CVs 10, 12, 16, 18, and any of the other warships commissioned (under originally different names) in commemoration of lost ships to simply "poof" out of existance. For example, the Essexes mentioned (CVs 10, 12, 16, 18) were "actually" in various stages of construction under different names while CVs 2, 5, 7, and 8 were still afloat. But if the original namesakes stay afloat, the Essexes don't arrive under their original names! They are scrapped basically. All this to avoid the naming issue. Also tends to causesome players to"sacrifice" these ships in bizarre endeavours because it is beneficial to some degree for the player to lose them.

But! As I said, not all the Betas like it, but it's not our call in the final analysis. I own a bar and can't stand "new country" whining, hip hop gangster crap, cock or jock rock...the list goes on, and if any staff does not like it, they can work at some joint that does not provide a full health insurance plan.[;)]

Be nice if it was a toggable option though.[:D]

[2ndACR]

Went back earlier and re-read my post, did not like lumping everybody into the same boat.

[Fallschirmjager]

I dont like the idea of losing some 300 odd points when one is sunk.
Thats hard to make up.

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Went back earlier and re-read my post, did not like lumping everybody into the same boat.

Thank you. The opinions will differ as much between betas as it does between the plebs.[;)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Drongo

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Went back earlier and re-read my post, did not like lumping everybody into the same boat.

Thank you. The opinions will differ as much between betas as it does between the plebs.[;)]

I read somewhere that the Ausiies were upset with the US for using "Canberra" for a Baltimore class in honour of the County lost at Savo. I wonder if this is why the third Aussie Tribal was named Bataan...to snub the US? Did not work as an Independence was named Bataan anyway. I also wonder if the US felt they had to name a ship for Canberra as it has been adequately shown that USS Bagley accidently torpedoed the Canberra during the initial phase of the battle. This is not the Ellet assistingin the scuttling, Canberra was hit "during" the battle from Bagley's direction.

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I also wonder if the US felt they had to name a ship for Canberra as it has been adequately shown that USS Bagley accidently torpedoed the Canberra during the initial phase of the battle. This is not the Ellet assistingin the scuttling, Canberra was hit "during" the battle from Bagley's direction.

We asked for the ship to be called USS "Ooops Sorry" but the idea didn't prove too popular.

[fbastos]

How to get 23 Essex:

Lose Lexington, Saratoga, Yorktown, Hornet, Enterprise, Wasp, Essex, Bunker Hill, Intrepid & Franklin before Nov-1943.

You get 10 Essex back: Lexington II, Saratoga II, ... etc..., Franklin II by Dec-1944

Then you get 9 Essex as reinforcements through 1945: Hancock, Randolph, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Boxer, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La, Lake Champlain

So you end with 19 surviving Essex. Add the 4 that you lost, you get a count of 23 built by 1945.

Also, consider this: you get 10 Essex popping back to life by Dec-1944. Until that date, you got as reinforcements the Hancock, Randolph, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La.

This way, by Dec-1944 you have 17 live Essex, plus the 4 you lost before, so you got 21 Essex total, when historically you should have 15. You got 40% more boats without losing anything else.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Drongo

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I also wonder if the US felt they had to name a ship for Canberra as it has been adequately shown that USS Bagley accidently torpedoed the Canberra during the initial phase of the battle. This is not the Ellet assistingin the scuttling, Canberra was hit "during" the battle from Bagley's direction.

We asked for the ship to be called USS "Ooops Sorry" but the idea didn't prove too popular.

[;)]

[WiTP_Dude]

ORIGINAL: fbastos

Also, consider this: you get 10 Essex popping back to life by Dec-1944. Until that date, you got as reinforcements the Hancock, Randolph, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La.

"Don't cut off your nose to spite your face"

You are going to lose on point advantage if you lose ALL of your CVs like this so early on. Not to mention the fact Japan will able to build up the Central Pacific into armed camp with size 9 forts everywhere. So in the end, if the Allied player wants to suffer catastrophic defeat after catastrophic defeat during 1942 & 1943 in order to get a few more carriers commissioned, I'm sure the Japanese player will be happy to go along with that strategy.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: fbastos

How to get 23 Essex:

Lose Lexington, Saratoga, Yorktown, Hornet, Enterprise, Wasp, Essex, Bunker Hill, Intrepid & Franklin before Nov-1943.

You get 10 Essex back: Lexington II, Saratoga II, ... etc..., Franklin II by Dec-1944

Then you get 9 Essex as reinforcements through 1945: Hancock, Randolph, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Boxer, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La, Lake Champlain

So you end with 19 surviving Essex. Add the 4 that you lost, you get a count of 23 built by 1945.

Also, consider this: you get 10 Essex popping back to life by Dec-1944. Until that date, you got as reinforcements the Hancock, Randolph, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La.

This way, by Dec-1944 you have 17 live Essex, plus the 4 you lost before, so you got 21 Essex total, when historically you should have 15. You got 40% more boats without losing anything else.

If you're so darn good that you're able to sink ALL the Allied CVs you should be glad for more targets and their associated VPs.

This complaint is one of the more ridiculous of the recent incessant complaining by the of Axis fans. Considering all the built in advantages they get in the game, I'd think you'd all just be happy with what you've got. In real life they never even had a chance. There was no Auto Win.

The respawn rule also penalizes players that don't lose their CVs in '42. Personally, I wish they had simply released the CVs with their original names and avoided the renaming debacle altogether. The way it stands though: If you lose 4, it's a wash - but you may not get your CVs as soon as you otherwise might have. If you lose less, it's a penalty - but BTW you're winning. If you lose more, it's a benefit - but BTW you're getting your butt kicked.

I don't see any advantage to losing a CV and not getting it replaced for 18 months or so. That's 18 months where I would expect any kind of competent Axis player to be taking advantage of their CV superiority.

[fbastos]

Oh, just noticed, you can get 27 Essex:

Lose Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise, Yorktown & Hornet by Feb-1942 (you'll get Lexington II, Saratoga II, Enterprise II, Yorktown II, Hornet II by Aug-1943)

By Nov-1943, you'll have Wasp, Essex, Bunker Hill, Intrepid, Franklin, Lexington II, Saratoga II, Enterprise II, Yorktown II, Hornet II. Lose them all.

You'll get all of them back by Dec-1944: Wasp II, Essex II, Bunker Hill II, Interprid II, Franklin II, Lexington III, Saratoga III, Enterprise III, Yorktown III, Hornet III.

Plus the regular reinforcements: Hancock, Randolph, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Boxer, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La, Lake Champlain.

So, bear with me: you got these Essex boats: Lexington II, Lexington III, Saratoga II, Saratoga III, Enterprise II, Enterprise III, Yorktown II, Yorktown III, Hornet II, Hornet III, Essex, Essex II, Bunker Hill, Bunker Hill II, Intrepid, Intrepid II, Franklin, Franklin II, Hancock, Randolph, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Boxer, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La, Lake Champlain.

This way the game gave you 27 Essex by 1945 (you lost 9 of them). Pretty far from the historical 17.

[fbastos]

Gentlemen,

Please, keep your mind open. I don't intend to kill carriers for Essex in a real game, and I don't argue that someone should do it (well, in the case of Wasp, yeah, probably should).

My point is that the mechanics are incorrect, open the way for strange behaviors, and it is much more realistic to just put the Yorktown II, Wasp II, Hornet II, Lexington II in the database as regular reinforcements, rather than magical respawns.

Don't understand why people are bashing me for that.

Regards,
F.

[WiTP_Dude]

Now you're just be stubborn. [:D]

According to the manual, the ship must be lost before 1944. Note it takes 18 months for a ship to come back. Even if you lose the Lexington in January 1942, it will not reappear again as the Lexington II until July 1943. Now let's say you get that one sunk really quickly by August 1943. It doesn't reappear again until February 1945.

This is a very tight catastrophe schedule and will not likely happen this way. The question really is can the Americans produce more carriers if they had to. With these kind of losses they will likely want to.

[2ndACR]

As the IJN, I DO hope to kill them all.[:D]

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: fbastos

Gentlemen,

Please, keep your mind open. I don't intend to kill all of the Essex in a real game, of course.

My point is that the mechanics are incorrect, and open the way for strange behaviors.

I really haven't seen anyone that likes the rule as it stands. An Allied player expects to do better than history and likely sees it as stealing CVs he should rightly have. An Axis player also expects to do better and rightly sees sinking all the Allied CVs as being impossible thanks to this rule. I agree with you that the rule aint that great. I just may disagree over its impact on the game.

[fbastos]

This is a very tight catastrophe schedule and will not likely happen this way. The question really is can the Americans produce more carriers if they had to. With these kind of losses they will likely want to.

Yeah, that's a good point. I think that if the Allies are getting an unhistorical increase on the number of CA/CVs, something else must give.

Perhaps the Allied player should be allowed to switch some ship that is on the replacement line at more than 550 days, for a CV/CA that he has lost, provided that they have similar durability.

F.

[fbastos]

I agree with you that the rule aint that great.

So this is not the most ridiculous complaint you have seen, eh?

Perhaps the second most ridiculous, then.. [:)]

Just wait until you hear me about the Americans getting an atomic bomb per month through 45...

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: fbastos

I agree with you that the rule aint that great.

So this is not the most ridiculous complaint you have seen, eh?

Perhaps the second most ridiculous, then.. [:)]

Just wait until you hear me about the Americans getting an atomic bomb per month through 45...

Never said it was the most ridiculous. Said it was one of the more ridiculous of the many recent complaints. What was ridiculous IMO though was its presentation; not the dislike for the rule. In reality it's not a good thing to lose your CVs in the game. Safe to say that the game will end long before '45 for any Allied players that lose all their ships.

Also, it wasn't you that got to me. It was this comment: "Frankly I would be embarassed to play the Allies with such an easy street".

I'm more than a little fed up with the guilt trips being laid on Allied players. Seems to me that the battles should be in the game and victories should be won there as well; rather than by rules manipulation. Especially since nobody has actually finished a game yet. We really don't know how easy or hard it is for an Axis player to get an early auto victory. Until we do, I think we ought to just play the game as originally designed.