Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships!

[fbastos]

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.

Well posted, Culiacan.

I agree with you - that is just a controversial oddity that was arbitrarily inherited from Pacific War.

I think we could live without it without really changing anything in the game (and place the 4 missing Essex in the regular production line, whatever the name they choose).

F.

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

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. (How many of those are armored?)

Highly experienced but highly p*ssed off. They'd won one war (well they help Brits really...) somebody other Joe should win next one.

Sixteen Infantry and 2 Armor divisions from Europe* were slated to participate in Operation Coronet -- the invasion of the Tokyo Plain in March, 1946 after Olympic secured airbases on Kyushu.

Strawbuck is right -- either the experience or the morale for those units would have been low . . . the US was having a devil of a time figuring out how to fairly demobilize most of the European Army while sending other units to fight in Japan.

* = the 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 27, 28, 35, 44, 86, 87, 91, 95, 96, 97, 104 Infantry
and the 13th and 20th Armor

[LargeSlowTarget]

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.

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.

Agree 100%, Cmdrcain. Lexington II, Yorktown II, Wasp II and Hornet II were all ordered and well under construction before the 'original' CVs got sunk. The US built only so many hulls historically and they should get so many hulls in the game, bearing the original names for the sake of simplicity. Steel and shipyard restrictions would have ruled out 'extra' hulls being built without sacrifices elsewhere.

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

If the IJN sank that many US CVs the game would probobly end in instant victory before many of the lost ships got "cloned" and returned.

If the USN loses all 6 CVs in 1942 the IJN should take enough teritory to get the points to end the game.

Not if they trade them 1 for 1 or even 2 for 1. The respawning encourages the Allied player to play more aggressively with his CA and CV than he would be likely to otherwise. Just say NO to respawning. (The debate is pointless though. GG has said he won't budge on this issue). [:@]

[Mr.Frag]

Not if they trade them 1 for 1 or even 2 for 1. The respawning encourages the Allied player to play more aggressively with his CA and CV than he would be likely to otherwise.

Thats the goal! [;)] Thats what happened Historically! [;)]

Think Coral Sea would have happened with the USA playing wimpy? Think Midway would have happened?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Not if they trade them 1 for 1 or even 2 for 1. The respawning encourages the Allied player to play more aggressively with his CA and CV than he would be likely to otherwise.

Thats the goal! [;)] Thats what happened Historically! [;)]

Think Coral Sea would have happened with the USA playing wimpy? Think Midway would have happened?

How dark is it up there Mr. Tiddleywinks?[:D][;)]

This is a screwed arguement, Ray. I'm going to the dev forum with my rebuttle![;)]

[tsimmonds]

This is a screwed arguement, Ray.

It's not an arguement; it's an explanation. Not unlike, "Because I said so, young man, that's why!"

[Svar]

Just for the record, the CA respawn rule also includes CLs. I don't know when it was changed but in my AI vs AI game that was stopped at 7/28/45 v1.21 Scenario #16 modified, there were 14 respawned Baltimore class CAs in theater along with the 4 that were already in the game. There would have been 15 but the Australia was sunk for the second time before 1944 and not respawned. Of the 15 total respawned CAs 7 were from sunk CLs. Not every sunk CA or CL was respawned as a CA but there were more respawned CAs than respawned CLs. Just the luck of the draw I guess. One of the respawned CLs was the Columbia which entered the game as a Cleveland class CL. The Perth was also sunk twice before 1944 but not respawned twice while the Lexington was sunk twice and respawned twice. It was the only Essex class CV sunk. Also for the record, there were so many respawned CAs entering the game with the USS Baltimore that some of them entered the game missing guns and were never repaired. The worst was the Houston which entered with 3 8" main guns instead of the 9 for a normal Baltimore class CA. Two other CAs entering at that time were short 8" guns, so I guess the game tracks the number of naval guns being produced as well as army guns. Most of the respawned CAs that entered a few months after the USS Baltimore had the full complement of weapons installed.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Svar

Just for the record, the CA respawn rule also includes CLs. I don't know when it was changed but in my AI vs AI game that was stopped at 7/28/45 v1.21 Scenario #16 modified, there were 14 respawned Baltimore class CAs in theater along with the 4 that were already in the game. There would have been 15 but the Australia was sunk for the second time before 1944 and not respawned. Of the 15 total respawned CAs 7 were from sunk CLs. Not every sunk CA or CL was respawned as a CA but there were more respawned CAs than respawned CLs. Just the luck of the draw I guess. One of the respawned CLs was the Columbia which entered the game as a Cleveland class CL. The Perth was also sunk twice before 1944 but not respawned twice while the Lexington was sunk twice and respawned twice. It was the only Essex class CV sunk. Also for the record, there were so many respawned CAs entering the game with the USS Baltimore that some of them entered the game missing guns and were never repaired. The worst was the Houston which entered with 3 8" main guns instead of the 9 for a normal Baltimore class CA. Two other CAs entering at that time were short 8" guns, so I guess the game tracks the number of naval guns being produced as well as army guns. Most of the respawned CAs that entered a few months after the USS Baltimore had the full complement of weapons installed.

Pitiful, truly pitiful (respawning twice) as though virtually 1/2 the fleet can respawn isn't bad enough. This may be enough to make me quit the game forever.

[fbastos]

Just for the record, the CA respawn rule also includes CLs.

Manual 5 x Fbastos 0...

"An American or Australian CA that is sunk prior to 1944 will be replaced..."
/Sigh

F.

[mongo]

I believe the entire US economy was starting to turn away from war production by the end of 44/ beginning of 45.

It's not inconceivable that shipyard production could be ramped up.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: fbastos

Just for the record, the CA respawn rule also includes CLs.

Manual 5 x Fbastos 0...

"An American or Australian CA that is sunk prior to 1944 will be replaced..."
/Sigh

F.

Oh great, why not throw in English ships as well? I guess those Australian shipping grounds must've had a lot of open slots. Man, talk about an Aliied fanboy rule gone mad!!!! And as I think I said before, as I was intent on playing both sides, this bothers me more as a perspective Allied player than as a Japanese one. This needs a toggle more than anything has needed a toggle. I feel like the whole game has just been massively torpedoed; it's awful.

[Brausepaul]

Even for simplicity it would be much better if this rule was dropped: just make a sequence of reinforcements/replacements and, if possible, a namecheck, so that new CVs, CAs etc... could get names of sunken predecessors.

[Svar]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
Pitiful, truly pitiful (respawning twice) as though virtually 1/2 the fleet can respawn isn't bad enough. This may be enough to make me quit the game forever.

I wouldn't get too excited about Lexington being respawned twice, it was the 5th Essex class CV respawned so those together with the 13 original Essex class CVs still only amount to 18 and there were 19 built during the timeframe of this game. The 'last' Lexington entered the game on 4/28/45 without its fighters again just like all the other respawned CVs which could have led to sinking of the Essex class Lexington in the first place. I thought that having the carrier trained squadrons assigned to the West Coast was keeping the SF based VFs from joining the respawned CVs when they arrived at SF but for the second Lexington the AI reassigned VF-2 to the Central Pacific and sent it to Hilo. When I check the last save (7/28/45) the Lexington was operating south of Iwo Jima and VF-2 was still in Hilo, apparently the Lady Lex just sailed right past without reboarding her fighter squadron. Since there is some kind of bug keeping those CVs that don't enter the game with VBF squadrons from ever acquiring them, the Lexington is operating with 33 A/C.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Svar

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
Pitiful, truly pitiful (respawning twice) as though virtually 1/2 the fleet can respawn isn't bad enough. This may be enough to make me quit the game forever.

I wouldn't get too excited about Lexington being respawned twice, it was the 5th Essex class CV respawned so those together with the 13 original Essex class CVs still only amount to 18 and there were 19 built during the timeframe of this game. The 'last' Lexington entered the game on 4/28/45 without its fighters again just like all the other respawned CVs which could have led to sinking of the Essex class Lexington in the first place. I thought that having the carrier trained squadrons assigned to the West Coast was keeping the SF based VFs from joining the respawned CVs when they arrived at SF but for the second Lexington the AI reassigned VF-2 to the Central Pacific and sent it to Hilo. When I check the last save (7/28/45) the Lexington was operating south of Iwo Jima and VF-2 was still in Hilo, apparently the Lady Lex just sailed right past without reboarding her fighter squadron. Since there is some kind of bug keeping those CVs that don't enter the game with VBF squadrons from ever acquiring them, the Lexington is operating with 33 A/C.

Well it's pretty dumb in either event, isn't it? Although I'll take a free carrier with 33 AC any day of the week, assuming I like to play in somewhat reduced cakewalk mode that is. Unfortunately as things stand, it can't be turned off whether you like it or not. There better be a toggle for this nonsense or WITP is history for me. It also puts a massive damper on me paying good money for any future GG games too, as I'll have to peruse the forums for a good long while to see if this sort of thing crops up in those games without a toggle.

[tsimmonds]

There better be a toggle for this nonsense or WITP is history for me.

Why overreact? Just find a PBEM opponent who will agree not to use them. Anyway, if you are giving him fleets full of "free" ships, it is because you are giving him a royal bunny-stomping. This is not such as big deal as everyone seems to want to make it.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

There better be a toggle for this nonsense or WITP is history for me.

Why overreact? Just find a PBEM opponent who will agree not to use them. Anyway, if you are giving him fleets full of "free" ships, it is because you are giving him a royal bunny-stomping. This is not such as big deal as everyone seems to want to make it.

I don't PBEM, and frankly I doubt the sanity of someone who would actually think they would have the vigor to finish it (It's the WORST example of trying to play something multi-player in the history of gaming, needless to say). I'm not even convinced I would finish it myself against the AI, as I don't recall that I even finished PW against the AI, so yeah, no help there. I'm determined to try, in fact I restarted my campaign like so many others did with the new patch (which will inevitably be restarted with the patch after that).

Part of the idea with Japan, is to try to at least keep the carrier edge since you started with one. If the Allies get them replaced all the time what's the point? Not everyone gets a whole lot of satisfaction off some mere point boost for having more targets to hit.

If as an Ally, I don't really lose the CV's/CA's/CL's but just puts them in statis for a bit, what kind of loss is that. It seems that at least the morale of the naval units for the losing nations with these type of ships, should go down.

[Nikademus]

I've often mussed if the VP for ships should not be more steep in order to curb aggressiveness. Maybe even a PP penalty for certain types. (capital ship....merchants etc)

Of course the type of ship that is used the most as a "throwaway" are the merchants. Yet in reality they are the heart of any maritime power.