Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships!

[Feinder]

You do relize that, if the Japanese player sinks all of the US carriers by 1943, he is very-extremely-most-likely clobbering the US player by such a collossal margin that, he's going to trigger an auto-victory.

In which case, the US player getting replacement CVs in 1945 is moot, because the game will terminate before then.

(* shrug *)

-F-

[Brausepaul]

May be we shouldn't mix up one issue (auto respawn) with another (possible reinforcement due to VE day). I have the feeling that any discussion leads to a general "If A got this I want that" sooner or later. I'm new to this forum but this fanboy talk is getting disgusting pretty soon.

In my opinion the very basic questions are:

1) Would the US have been capable to increase the building of CV if they had lost more carriers (same for heavy cruisers)?

1a) If so, would this have lead to a decrease in any other area?

2) How can this be implemented?

Some other posters have stated that the US shipyards have been at their limits in 1942 and 1943 (those that builded big ships). Is there any reliable source for this?

By the way, has there been any input by the developers on this matter? I guess the developers spent some thoughts on that, too (and I mean REAL input, nothing vague like "betas obstructed this or that").

[Titanwarrior89]

I am for the replacement carriers coming in, and I play both sides. Why! Because "overall" it is historical. Do some reading, from different sources and you'll see. I get the impression here some times that certain players want to only play the Jap side and in doing so want to set the game up Ahistorical to meet their needs so as to win. The U.S. did lose carriers and did replace them. It's a fact. Japan in "no way" stay up with the production of the United States or even come close to it. It's a historical wargame. It is based over all on the historical assets that each side had and could have produced too a certain degree within the time line allowed. What time line is that! The historical time line. [:D]

[Admiral DadMan]

Beta Tester Weighing In...

As I recall it, we were pretty much of two groups; those who opposed it, and those who it didn't bother.

We offered our opinions and left it to "it is what it is".

Remember this: Do you really want to give up nearly 3000 VPs to get back 6 new Essex Class? The math is 450 each ship broken down by 350-380 for the ship and about 90 for its airgroup.

If you've managed to not get your pre-war US CV's sunk, you're playing pretty well.

The "re-spawning" system is what it is. My disagreement with it was taken care of with the Editor [:D]

[Mr.Frag]

Remember this: Do you really want to give up nearly 3000 VPs to get back 6 new Essex Class? The math is 450 each ship broken down by 350-380 for the ship and about 90 for its airgroup.

Not just that cost, there is also the hidden cost of loosing all those skilled pilots that now have to be retrained all over again.

Really, anyone who actually plays like this will have probably lost the game before they even get the first batch of CV's back into play. You almost *want* to play people like that [:D]

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Remember this: Do you really want to give up nearly 3000 VPs to get back 6 new Essex Class? The math is 450 each ship broken down by 350-380 for the ship and about 90 for its airgroup.

Not just that cost, there is also the hidden cost of losing all those skilled pilots that now have to be retrained all over again.

Really, anyone who actually plays like this will have probably lost the game before they even get the first batch of CV's back into play. You almost *want* to play people like that [:D]

*sigh*

Yes, I'm in that boat, but not because I was trying to be aggressive. I forgot to take that "left turn at Albequerque" with 2 of my US CVs playing Luskan...

[mccavage]

I agree that the respawning is OK and as currently set up, may in fact reduce the actual numbers of Essex deployed.

I am mystified by those that argue the US was at or near a shipyard limit. Per my Conway's, the US cancelled two Essex class when it became apparant the war was winding down. Those ships were in slips (Reprisal CV35 and Iwo Jima CV46) laid down and building.

Laid down, in the dock and building when cancelled (thus the slips were certainly useable if CV's had priority) -
2 Iowas - Kentucky and Illinois-BB65&66
1 Alaska - CB3 Hawaii
1 Des Moines - CA140 Dallas

This doesn't begin to consider slots building tankers that could handle an Essex sized hull or assume that even one of the actual completed vessels of requisite size would be cancelled or converted. If anything like the loss of the original 6 CV's had happened, I think it is quite safe to assume the US finds the extra slipways and in fact, I'd consider it likely the Midway class shows up early.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Remember this: Do you really want to give up nearly 3000 VPs to get back 6 new Essex Class? The math is 450 each ship broken down by 350-380 for the ship and about 90 for its airgroup.

Not just that cost, there is also the hidden cost of loosing all those skilled pilots that now have to be retrained all over again.

Really, anyone who actually plays like this will have probably lost the game before they even get the first batch of CV's back into play. You almost *want* to play people like that [:D]

Still bugs me that all the pilots drown when a carrier goes down. Phooey.

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Still bugs me that all the pilots drown when a carrier goes down. Phooey.

See: Battle of Midway [:)]

[fbastos]

I am mystified by those that argue the US was at or near a shipyard limit. Per my Conway's, the US cancelled two Essex class when it became apparant the war was winding down. Those ships were in slips (Reprisal CV35 and Iwo Jima CV46) laid down and building.

Both cancelled on Aug-1945. I think the war had ended by then...

[fbastos]

1) Would the US have been capable to increase the building of CV if they had lost more carriers (same for heavy cruisers)?

1a) If so, would this have lead to a decrease in any other area?

Brausepaul hit the nail of my troubles here. I'm not so much against respawning the CVs. I'm against respawning them for free.

If the player lost something if he respawns a CV/CA (political points or a delay on some other reinforcement) I would be very comfortable with that.

F.

[fbastos]

I am mystified by those that argue the US was at or near a shipyard limit.

So during the very tough year of 1944, with thousands of sailors dieing over the Pacific, there were some unused slips in some shipyards in the US?

Certainly not. Everything available was used and there was no spare of any type.

I do believe that the US could have built 100 Essex during WW2, if it wanted. But something else would not have been built. My whole point is that you respawn a ship -you should lose something.

Regards,
F.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: fbastos

I am mystified by those that argue the US was at or near a shipyard limit.

So during the very tough year of 1944, with thousands of sailors dieing over the Pacific, there were some unused slips in some shipyards in the US?

Certainly not. Everything available was used and there was no spare of any type.

I do believe that the US could have built 100 Essex during WW2, if it wanted. But something else would not have been built. My whole point is that you respawn a ship -you should lose something.

Regards,
F.

There was a STEEL SHORTAGE, not some shipyard capacity crisis. There was so much military construction going on that it basically outstripped the ability to produce enough steel to maintain the pace.

[fbastos]

There was a STEEL SHORTAGE, not some shipyard capacity crisis.

That reinforces my point, I think. The shipyards were building everything they could build considering the resources they had (slips + work force + metal + engines + gun mounts + etc... ).

I don't think they could have built say 10 Iowas without losing any other ships. It's not like there was available capacity (again slips + everything else etc...) and that someone decided to not use it just because there was already too many ships, I don't think so.

My whole point is that you build an unhistorical ship, you gotta lose a historical ship, even if that is an AK.

F.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Beezle
Hehehehehe. I had forgotten the VE day Effect.

Yeah, I want 25 divisions in SF, all with Exp 90, on 9/1/45...

Why?

[Cmdrcain]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

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

Well, one shouldn't either baby them, if you lose em you lose em and get new ones, the real bugaboo is players good at not losing em then don't even get the essex's that would have arrived anyway (under their original intended names)

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

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

Well, one shouldn't either baby them, if you lose em you lose em and get new ones, the real bugaboo is players good at not losing em then don't even get the essex's that would have arrived anyway (under their original intended names)

This is the clincher for the arguement against respawning. As I mentioned in the earlier thread, this applies to all ships named for ships sunk in the war in the long campaigns. Subs, Destroyers, Cruisers, Carriers. Nothing else is relevant. All ships with duplicate names are not in the database. That's alot of hulls.

[Cmdrcain]

ORIGINAL: von Murrin

I must be one of the few who actually likes the rule.

If I have more than two of my early war CV's, chances are I've done serious damage to the IJN and/or am winning fast. I don't need extra Essex CV's.
If I've lost more than four early war CV's, odds are I'm not doing so hot or am losing. A few more CV's would be helpful and not entirely unrealistic.

I think it's a pretty elegant balance. This "respawn" rule, as it's being called, gives me a reason to seek battle with the IJN instead of hiding in ports or launching wimpy raids for all of '42, and at the same time penalizes me if I put them in danger for a chance at extra CV's later on. From the IJ point of view, it has no effect at all. Everything you sink is helpful, and if the Allied player is getting several extra Essex CV's, you're probably going to play him to a draw or at least fight on longer than was done historically.

Much ado about nothing, IMHO.[:)]

The problem in above way you put it is those ESSEX carriers are not EXTRAS.

They were ACTUAL ESSEX carriers that WERE going to be built and deployed no matter if the original Carriers were sunk or not.

They did not say Oh dear we lost the Yorktown, we need to start building an replacement, they were already in the plans o be built and would have been built irregardless so terming them "extras" is a misnomer.

Of course if you didn't lose your originals that could mean your doing great and you really don't need the essex's coming off the shipyards that [:D][:'(] or you been too scared to use your original Cv's [:D]

What some of us are arguing is they could have maybe coded it so if
Say Yorktown got sunk, then Essex Yorktown would arrive But Essex ( With ORIGINAL PLANNED NAME) would never arrive.

If Yorktown isn't sunk then the ESSEX with the ORIGINAL Planned name WOULD still arrive so allied still gets that Essex after all it was in the plans..

Its just a bit of If X = True then Y if X = False then Z type of coding logic where X = Original Carrier Yorktown , Y= Essex Yorktown Z= Original ESSEX with intended Name and True/false for Sunk.

No need to have put in silly respawn routines...

As to why some are posting on this perhaps it can be brought to attention of developers before World at War is finished, maybe THAT one can be coded right for this sitution.

It really was only a matter of database entrys for essex carriers with original intended names and Essex carriers with the OLD Original Carrier names and a Check on if the old had been sunk at time any of those 5 essex were to arrive, one or other essex then be the one to have been "arrived"

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Still bugs me that all the pilots drown when a carrier goes down. Phooey.

See: Battle of Midway [:)]

The fact that the Japanese were more interested in saving the Emperor's portrait than it's naval aviators should not be the basis for losing pilots in the game.[;)] The Allies went to great lengths to rescue those individuals (sailors or pilots) when a ship was sunk. So did the IJN more often than not. Perhaps the pilots on CVs which do not land elsewhere when a ship is sunk endure a check to see if they drown or are rescued by the accompanying ships.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Feinder
You do relize that, if the Japanese player sinks all of the US carriers by 1943, he is very-extremely-most-likely clobbering the US player by such a collossal margin that, he's going to trigger an auto-victory.

In which case, the US player getting replacement CVs in 1945 is moot, because the game will terminate before then.

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
They were ACTUAL ESSEX carriers that WERE going to be built and deployed no matter if the original Carriers were sunk or not.

If the sinking of American carriers didn’t dictated production levels, and if it is non-factor in play balancing… why include it as is not historical and adds nothing to balancing the game? Not all that significant in my opinion… just odd.