Why the CV replacement rule is not worth worrying about

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Massive alterations for kamikaze survivability

Ron, not valid at all ... this was completely unknown factor until it actually happened.

The Tico changes were more about improving the CV based on experiences with the Essex's in 43, stuff in '45 is what drove the *next* classes coupled with innovations in aircraft design resulting in required design changes.

The USN while having ships not up to '45 standards were not really aware of '45 standards in '43 when they could have made an impact. The war ended at the close of '43 when the USN finally had enough CV's *AND* more importantly the *BRAINS* to adopt proper CV tactics. Prior to that point in time, they pretty much threw their CV's away as they didn't seem to understand how to use them effectively.

First real kamikaze effort was in October 44 in the PI. Pensacola, and most prewar vessels (even Mahans, Porters, Somers, Benhams, Sims lost most or all of their TTs in favour of medium and close range AA for the projected Coronet and Olympic operations)

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

When I first learned of this rule I too was not happy about it. But the more I look at it the less of a problem it is for me. Here's why:

IRL, the USN received 17 Essex class in the Pacific by VJ day. Five of these arrived in 1943, seven in 1944, and five in 1945.

In the game, should the USN suffer losses exactly per history, they would receive 17 Essex class in the Pacific by VJ day. Assuming the replacements take 550 days, six of them would arrive in 1943 (3 in Nov and Dec), eight in 1944, and three in 1945. Okay, so there is a little bit of acceleration, but IMO not enough to make any difference.

In the game, should the USN suffer no losses whatsoever in prewar CVs, they would receive 13 Essex class, 3 in 43, 7 in 44, and 3 in 45. This seems reasonable.

In the game, should the USN suffer historical losses plus lose Enterprise and Saratoga on 1/1/42, they would receive 19 Essex class, 8 in 43 (again, 3 in Nov and Dec), 8 in 44, and 3 in 45. Again, I don't see anything here that I can't accept.

I really don't understand what makes people so unhappy about this. IMHO it is a fair and realistic way of dealing with two issues:
1) compensating for a early-war disaster by accelerating CV construction, which the US industrial machine would surely have found a way to do, and
2) discouraging an unrealistic but otherwise perfectly viable allied strategy of sitting back and waiting until a huge fleet of CVs has been amassed. If you sit back and wait, you get less toys to play with. The benefit given to the allied player of the first point is offset by the benefit afforded to the Japanese player by the second.

Comments?

You may need to revise your list. For one thing it includes all USN CA's and CL's too. The manual states the OZ CA's (and therefore probaby CL's too) covered by this thing.

This should not really apply to non USN ships at all. The only reason why USS Canberra was launched was because the US Defence Dept knew that HMAS Canberra was accidently torpedoes by USS Bagley in the opening minutes of the Battle of Savo island. This was sort of an unofficial apology I'd bet.

[timtom]

While I suspect that the issue might be somewhat academic in that most Allied players will probably lose four+ CV's, I don't quite understand why the CV's in question just haven't been included under their original names, - a historical transgression Im sure we can all live with.

As we all know the ships were laid down well before the USN lost its first CV. It is entirely random that CV-10, -12, -16, & -18 were renamed after those lost. Could as well have some of the other ones. Indeed, had they NOT been renamed, we wouldn't be having this debate at all! Now that the cat's out of the bag, why not start fiddling with the other new-builts? The argument that the situation somehow reflects the ability of the US to de- or accelerate its shipbuilding program carries the logic that we should move towards a system whereby the US rate of reinforcements are dictated by their in-game fortunes rather than history. I.e. if X is doing better than history at point Y in time, then replacement rate Z is altered accordingly. Im sure nobody would want that for obvious reasons.

[vonmoltke]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

No kidding the western powers thought that Japan was a non issue...before the war. It has been covered in depth. But they (USA with regard this debate) believed the overall threat to be severe enough to have initiated the massive 1940 and 41 naval estimates. Germany and fascism can't be ignored in these arguements. These estimates included four early Essexes and a host of lesser vessels eliminated from the database because of the name issue. Does anyone think that if the USN did not rename ships after those lost that a respawning feature would be included? EG. If CVs 10, 12, 16, and 18 were named Quebec, Brandywine, King's Mountain, Monmouth instead of Yorktown II, Hornet II, Lexington II and Wasp II, would they not be in the database as legitimate reinforcements, or would it be assumed that because Japan was not taken as a serious threat, these early build Essexes would not have been laid down.

The problem with that is that only the Essex was laid down before the war. CV-10, the future Yorktown II, was laid down after the war started. From here on, Japan was an oviosu threat, and the ships were being laid down at a rate of one every 1-2 months. Any discussion of how Japan was perceived before the war is moot with regard to the Essex program.

[freeboy]

Ok, maybe this is another issue where having respawn as an optional toggle would work,

Like many of the buidling air/ship/unit issue, I do not like the limits, but I do not like to micromanage.. my solution is give players preset chioces on easy toggles...
cv respawn on/ off
IJN oscar2 rule no/off
better sooner ijn de on/off

just my .02$ worth

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: mongo

No Navy can leave old ships out of harm's way for one reason: public opinion.

Not true.

All the prewar USN submarines up to and including the Gar/Tambor class were relegated to sub schools and ASW training duties from 43 on. With the reduction of IJs merchant Marine and the preponderance of new thick skinned Balaos and Tenchs and the older but effective Gatos, it was no longer viewed as necessary expose crews to undue risk serving in older thin skinned subs represented.

And this is a very important point. If the USN felt it had more than enough modern surface ships that it could tinker with production, why was this phenomenon (retiring of older ships) not widespread throughout the USN?

[mongo]

You are absolutely right about the subs Ron,

Please take my comment in context however.

The vast majority of the US public had little to no idea how effective the sub force was until after the war was over. The Silent Service was silent on all fronts.

I've seen a lot of old newspaper articles from the first part of 42. Many of them ask what our carriers were doing. Pearl Harbor and the success of the KB brought carrier aviation to the forefront of the public consciousness.

This whole thread is getting to be another one of those "ideological" arguements. There are a hundred reasons to do it and another hundred to not



I really need to try to get my hands on some of the War Production Board docs from early42-mid 43..

Maybe that could give us all a better idea what the rationale was.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Ok, maybe this is another issue where having respawn as an optional toggle would work,

Like many of the buidling air/ship/unit issue, I do not like the limits, but I do not like to micromanage.. my solution is give players preset chioces on easy toggles...
cv respawn on/ off
IJN oscar2 rule no/off
better sooner ijn de on/off

just my .02$ worth

Thanks for trying to help, but though perhaps you were just making a general category "cv respawn" it's much worse than that, as I understand it involves ALL USN CA's and CL's and ALL the OZ CA' and CL's respawning before if destroyed before '44. I believe somebody quoted the manual as saying it was just both nation's CA's and CV's but somebody was saying that ingame it's doing the CL's too.

[tsimmonds]

You may need to revise your list. For one thing it includes all USN CA's and CL's too. The manual states the OZ CA's (and therefore probaby CL's too) covered by this thing.

Forgive me, but IMHO CAs and CLs are basically irrelevant. You can have 5 of them or fifty, and it won't make any difference in the outcome. After 1/1/44 they are little more than auxiliaries, mere AAA platforms.

[esteban]

[/quote]

This should not really apply to non USN ships at all. The only reason why USS Canberra was launched was because the US Defence Dept knew that HMAS Canberra was accidently torpedoes by USS Bagley in the opening minutes of the Battle of Savo island. This was sort of an unofficial apology I'd bet.
[/quote]

It figures that the unreliable U.S. detonators would pick that particular point in time to work....

[Svar]

ORIGINAL: vonmoltke
The problem with that is that only the Essex was laid down before the war. CV-10, the future Yorktown II, was laid down after the war started. From here on, Japan was an oviosu threat, and the ships were being laid down at a rate of one every 1-2 months. Any discussion of how Japan was perceived before the war is moot with regard to the Essex program.

Ship Keel laid
CV-10 12/1/41
CV-11 12/1/41
CV-16 7/15/41
CV-17 9/15/41

Counting CV-9 that is 5 Essex class CV keels laid before the war and the first 11 Essex class CVs were authorized in 1940.

[freeboy]

If the IJN does so well as to sink these fleats, they should be overjoyed they respawn, more points to sink....
If we could add a toggle, then those cv,s would be worth a ton more in reallity if not points.

Consider as the IJN commander I know that killing any cv's in 42 gets them respawned.. so what, I need these points to win anyway, and the US will have lots of assets by mid 44
a few more won't make a big deal... so if you haven't "won" a points victory, then we are looking at the "survivor" victory... just survive and you win...
After all it would be a minor merical for a pbem game to go all throught the war.. but a game agains the ai might... if a person forgoes a life lol

[fbastos]

I think people just get annoyed when you sink two carriers on Dec 10 and your opponent sends you the e-mail that two new carriers have just shown up on his arrival list. It seems to diminish your accomplishment in some way.

Excellent point, moses. That's precisely why I don't play as Japanese.

/salute
F.

[Cmdrcain]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

But that is exactly the point Ron. That is pretty much exactly what the USA thought of them. Had they actually had any fear whatsoever of Japan, the USA would have ramped up their production levels back when Japan refused to be party to the Naval Accords years before the war and started th war with double the number of BB's and CV's and 50 times the number of aircraft they had. [:D]

The only conclusion one can draw from pre-war posturing was that the USA clearly thought them to be laughable and simply thought that some sanctions would make those "silly little yellow guys" knuckle under with nothing else needed.

Hummm a Scenario to make, where Japan , Britan and USa fail to agree and so all build up... humm you would have to allow for Japan to build More ships, more yamatos a few more CV's but would the USA have built more carriers?

Wouldn't been actually more US Battleships and cruisers built, it wasn't till the Battleship fleet was sunk in PH that the Carrier proponents got their way and as success occured the USa built even more carriers..


You probably could add a few more carriers early, but They would possiable be more Yorktown or Wasp class or Lexington class, but the main increase would have to be those BB's and cruisers which until PH were still seen as the Main Fleet ships to have.

I'd also have those extra Bb's and Cruisers based at Manilia as asiatic fleet, wasn't it that the USA pulled the fleet back in part to not bother the japanese besides not building up the phillipine defenses i late 30's for same reason... to mollify the japanese?

[Ron Saueracker]

And let's not forget that the US was just coming out the the Great Depression at this time as well, so starting the build up in 1940's is not necessarily linked to a disdain of the Japanese threat.

[timtom]

I fail to see how the "how's & why's" are relevant to this discussion. It's an uncontestable fact that they were built. All other reinforcement are given on the basis that if it floats, you get it. Witness the scramble in the forum to cram obscure units like RAN PG's into the OOB. But four CV's you cant get cause someone went and changed their names.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

You may need to revise your list. For one thing it includes all USN CA's and CL's too. The manual states the OZ CA's (and therefore probaby CL's too) covered by this thing.

Forgive me, but IMHO CAs and CLs are basically irrelevant. You can have 5 of them or fifty, and it won't make any difference in the outcome. After 1/1/44 they are little more than auxiliaries, mere AAA platforms.

If they're irrelevant, irrelevant, then why not just give them all to the Japanese? They're more than happy for irrelevant AA I can assure you.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

If the IJN does so well as to sink these fleats, they should be overjoyed they respawn, more points to sink....
If we could add a toggle, then those cv,s would be worth a ton more in reallity if not points.

Consider as the IJN commander I know that killing any cv's in 42 gets them respawned.. so what, I need these points to win anyway, and the US will have lots of assets by mid 44
a few more won't make a big deal... so if you haven't "won" a points victory, then we are looking at the "survivor" victory... just survive and you win...
After all it would be a minor merical for a pbem game to go all throught the war.. but a game agains the ai might... if a person forgoes a life lol

When you're trying to survive, and you're in for a rough go, that's when you don't mind that the enemy gets to respawn??? Seems the one with the easy victory would be the one with less concern fro permanent losses. I want my opponent to pay, and myself pay as well for EVERY little loss. Sure points are one thing, but that's more abstract. If I wipe up the floor with them I want to enjoy the fruits as they should be militarily too, not some DOOM respawn festival. The only place I think this idea of respawning should be, is where the realm of fantasy is, post VJ day, for at that point it could be nothing but fantasy. Naturally both sides (especially the loser), even during the historic part should have some fantasy elements such as invading different places and some upgrading, but respawning 3 entire classes of ships is just ludicrous. From what I saw of another thread, the same ship can even respawn more than once! IOW, it appears as though every single ship of those 3 classes, no matter how many times they sink before '44, will always come back. And this is a wargame?????? If there was a limit where at least JA would make some headway instead of them always getting replaced it would make a 'bit' of sense, but like I said before, as-is this is pretty much a one-sided street, where something good JA does is rewarded to the Allies in a sense. There is no equivalent for JA in this game at all. Just what happens to JA if they lose half their carriers early on, or have substantially greater victories? JA can knock out every CV/CL/CA from OZ and the USN, and just have those ships off the map for a time, and seemingly limitless at that, although I suppose with the building time you probably couldn't have a ship go through more then 4 incarnations during the game.

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

You may need to revise your list. For one thing it includes all USN CA's and CL's too. The manual states the OZ CA's (and therefore probaby CL's too) covered by this thing.

Forgive me, but IMHO CAs and CLs are basically irrelevant. You can have 5 of them or fifty, and it won't make any difference in the outcome. After 1/1/44 they are little more than auxiliaries, mere AAA platforms.

If they're irrelevant, irrelevant, then why not just give them all to the Japanese? They're more than happy for irrelevant AA I can assure you.

I'm talking about for the allied player. After a point there are only so many cruisers that he can use. Of course IJN could always use more. But that's hardly the point, is it? IJN is not going to get more. And check out my banner BTW, I am the Japanese. I just can't see how any of this will make any material difference in any game I may play, whether PBEM or vs the AI.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: timtom

I fail to see how the "how's & why's" are relevant to this discussion. It's an uncontestable fact that they were built. All other reinforcement are given on the basis that if it floats, you get it. Witness the scramble in the forum to cram obscure units like RAN PG's into the OOB. But four CV's you cant get cause someone went and changed their names.

So how do ALL the CA/CL (and probably CLAA's too) of BOTH the USN and OZ amount to just 4 CV's??? We've already heard about a CV respawning "more than once", so how is that 4 CV's? Some of you don't just seem to understand the grandeur of this. It's not just 4 CV's by any means. It's basically a guarantee that when the latter part of the war comes around, the Allied South Pacific fleet will be at full strength.