turning off the rule

[kgsan]

If the hulls for these ships were laid down before their namesakes were sunk, then it certainly seems like they ought to be included in the game.

Why not, as someone suggested above, just name them Yorktown II, etc. and include them in the OOB regardless of the USN's sunk CVs in any given game? It may not be elegant but it seems much more accrate. Yes, this may allow the allied player more CVs in the endgame if he does better than historically in husbanding his initial CVs, but that is life. Same goes with aircraft, and all the other vessels the allies have. If they do better than the US did historically they will have more "stuff" to use later in the war. If they lose more "stuff" than the US historically did they will have less. It seems about right.

What does not make sense is to intentionally reduce the carriers just because there is a slight naming hurdle. Now if the "extra" Essex carriers were only built after and as a result of the earlier carrier losses I could understand the current system. Does anyone know if this was in fact the case historically?

[fbastos]

It's a lost cause, MOGAMI. No hard-core Japanese Fan-Boy is ever going to believe than
the "re-spawning rule" is anything but a plot against his fantasies. These people are so
out of touch with reality they keep thinking that Japan SHOULD be able to win the war
for real (not just in game terms). They also believe in the HISTORY CHANNEL. And
probably in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny as well.

The spawning rule is controversial, and as such it's very difficult to convince either side to change their opinion (otherwise it, by definition, would be an agreeable issue rather controversial).

While I have my own point of view about that, and while I learn a lot from these discussions (it's wise to respect and listen to the people that think differently than one's own), I do think that the whole discussion is a complete loss of time.

Just give that thing as an option, and let each player set it the way they want. Otherwise every person coming aboard will raise this question over and over again.

Best regards,
F.

[mogami]

Hi, I think it is a silly thing to fight over as well. 4 CV are a powerfull force in 1941.
In 1944/45 4 CV is a TF in a hex with 4 other 4 CV TF with or without 4 respawed CV.
As a result of this rule the USN will always have exactly the same number of CV in 1944 unless Japan sinks 5 or more before then.

There are 3 scenarios

Japan sinks no CV USN gets no CV has exactly the 1944 number
Japan sinks 4 CV USN gets 4 CV has exactly the historic number in 1944
Japan sinks more then 4 CV USN gets 4 CV has the historic number minus the excess over 4 Japan has sunk.

If Japan does not do scenario 3 then it does not matter. If they do then they are ahead same as Japan would have been the exact number of CV Japan would have been. The only non historic outcome is scenario 1 where if the USN saves a CV it loses a CV that was already under construction in 1941 and that arrived in the Pacific in 1943. But the USN can spare 4 CV dispite their power. If they lose the war it will not be because they did not have these 4 ships. (The USN could under a straight OOB of ships have 4 extra CV in 1944 if it lost no CV)

[Andrew Brown]

I have to add my 2c - I LIKE the respawning rule. It simulates the likely reaction of the US war industry to the rate of CV losses simply and effectively, IMHO.

(edited for spelling)

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi the USN can lose 4 CV but it can never throw even 1 away. If they don't lose four to Japan they lose 4 actual Essex class CV that did fight in the war. (but they give or deny Japan 2000 VP depending) There is no plus side to this rule for the USN. (since if they got only historical ships and didn't lose any they would have 4 more. They only get 4 Essex that actually fought if they lose 4 other CV.)

If you really examine this rule it's not that the USN should lose 4 it's the IJN should not sink four. (because the replacements are better) As the IJN you want to damage CV not sink them. (and put the USN player in the weird position of having to scuttle a CV that he might otherwise save )[X(]

After turn 1100 it is ok to sink as many USN CV as you can.

It's a lost cause, MOGAMI. No hard-core Japanese Fan-Boy is ever going to believe than
the "re-spawning rule" is anything but a plot against his fantasies. These people are so
out of touch with reality they keep thinking that Japan SHOULD be able to win the war
for real (not just in game terms). They also believe in the HISTORY CHANNEL. And
probably in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny as well.

I loathe the decision to revisit the respawning feature after it was so disliked in PacWar. And I'm an Allied Fanboy I guess one could say. I don't know if it hurts Japan as much as the Allies. All ships in USN that were named after ships historically lost early on and served in the PTO during the period covered by the game have been ommitted. Here is the list with month of arrival (includes a 2-3 month shakedown)...

Essex Class CVs:
Yorktown II CV10 May/43 (ex Bon Homme Richard)
Hornet II CV12 Dec/43 (ex Kearsarge)
Lexington II CV16 Mar/43 (ex Cabot)
Wasp II CV18 Dec/43 (ex Oriskany)

Baltimore Class CAs:
Canberra II CA70 Nov/43 (ex Pittsburg)
Quincy II CA 71 Jan/44 (ex St. Paul)

Cleveland Class CLs:
Vincennes II CL 64 Feb/44 (ex Flint)
Houston II CL 81 Jan/44 (ex Vicksburg)
Astoria II CL 90 Jun/44 (ex Wilkes-Barre)
Atlanta II CL 104 Jan/45

Balao Class SSs:
Perch II SS 313 Jan/44
Shark II SS 314 Feb/44
Sealion II SS 315 Mar/44

Tench Class SSs:
Runner II SS 476 Feb/45

Fletcher Class DDs:
Preston II DD 795 Apr/44
Benham II DD 796 Mar/44
Cushing II DD 797 Jul/44
Monssen II DD 798 Apr/44
Jarvis II DD 799 Aug/44
Porter II DD 800 Aug/44
Colhoun II DD 801 Sep/44
Gregory II DD 802 Sep/44
Little II DD 803 Nov/44

Sumner Class DDs:
Barton II DD 722 Sep/44
Walke II DD 723 Sep/44
Laffey II DD 724 Sep/44
O'Brien II DD 725 Sep/44
Meredith II DD 726 Sep/44
DeHaven II DD 727 Jul/44
Blue II DD 744 Jul/44
Strong II DD 758 May/45

Sumner Class DMs:
Gwin II DM 33
Aaron Ward II DM 34

Gearing Class DDs:
McKean II DD 784
Chevalier II DD 805
Perkins II DD 877

Edsall Class DEs:
Edsall II DE 129 Jul/45
Hammann II DE 131 Jul/45
Stewart II DE 238 Jul/45

Buckley Class DEs:
Sims II DE 154 Jan/45

The CVs, CAs and CLs are only in the OOB in a scenario if the namesake is not...needless to say, they are not in the full length scenario. Whats worse, the destroyers, destroyer minelayers, destroyer escorts and subs are not in the game at all. Look at the list folks. If formed into a task force it is the equal, if not more powerful, than Kudo Butai which hit Pearl Harbor![X(]

The implications of the spawning feature are profound. Look at the arrival dates for the spawnable ships types (CVs, CAs, CLs). Most are the early units of the class so if the namesake is not sunk, the spawning rule assumes the actual hull number never existed. Unless the Allied player loses his namesake vessels early, he is penalized in that he receives the vessel later than the actual date. Worse still, if the Allied player is fortunate(?) enough to keep the namesake afloat, he is brutally penalized by losing the hulls which were historically available to him.

So, boys and girls....the Allied player is equally, perhaps more unjustly penalized by the spawning feature. All to avoid duplication of ship names. Makes many of the OOB issues pale in comparison does it not?

[Ron Saueracker]

What does not make sense is to intentionally reduce the carriers just because there is a slight naming hurdle. Now if the "extra" Essex carriers were only built after and as a result of the earlier carrier losses I could understand the current system. Does anyone know if this was in fact the case historically?

Of course the ships were not authorized by Congress every time a ship was sunk. We are not making Jell-O here. Orders were placed for a class run, were altered, renamed or cancelled as the situation warranted, but they were not conceived on a "when and if lost basis." This is completely off base. The spawning feature should be shot at sun up.[8D]

[Dereck]

I don't have the exact figures but during the war Japan never produced more than 200 ships of all types. The US produced more than that number in submarines alone, along with 108 carriers of all types (Fleet, Light, Escort), along with many other types of ships.

Remember, the US was producing Liberty ships in amazing quantity and sometimes as fast as in only THREE DAYS.

Industrially Japan was a minor league wanna-be who took on the largest industrial power in the world. It was a war in which Japan never had a chance to begin with and never should have started.

Actually, in my opinion, the American Navy is shorted more than just 4 replacement carriers. Since the campaign game can last into June 1946 there are a number of fleet carriers that WERE commissioned and active that are not included in the OOB - one of these being the carrier I served on. If the "war" goes beyond September 1945 these ships should be included in my opinion.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I have to add my 2c - I LIKE the respawning rule. It simulates the likely reaction of the US war industry to the rate of CV losses simply and effectively, IMHO.

(edited for spelling)

If this was possible, why would the US have converted nine Cleveland class CLs that were building into Independence class CVLs? Why could they not have "responded" to the sinkings and just slapped together more Essex class CVs? Remember that the CVs, CAs and CLs were renamed hulls already far along into the building process, they were NOT started from scratch as the spawning rule and design reasoning would have you believe.

[Onime No Kyo]

Is it only bad luck to rename a ship AFTER it's been launched? [:D]

[strawbuk]

@Taiyo

ORIGINAL: Taiyo

@pasternakski:

not bitching just asking for help. if that is forbidden on this forum then sorry didn't mean to.

Pasternaki may [X(] have been a little harsh but you see some simple searching of forum woudl have given you this tm.asp?m=690922&mpage=1&key=respawning - many many pages of the key arguments and fact that spawning is staying at moment as far the people who matter think ie the designers.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

@Taiyo

ORIGINAL: Taiyo

@pasternakski:

not bitching just asking for help. if that is forbidden on this forum then sorry didn't mean to.

Pasternaki may [X(] have been a little harsh but you see some simple searching of forum woudl have given you this tm.asp?m=690922&mpage=1&key=respawning - many many pages of the key arguments and fact that spawning is staying at moment as far the people who matter think ie the designers.

"many many pages of the key arguments and fact that spawning is staying at moment as far the people who matter think ie the designers."

Good thing a house rule and the honour system can circumvent it for the most part.

[Taiyo]

first of all, i was just asking if it is possible to turn it off somehow just to try out some other possibilities in the game. I wasn't even questioning the rule.

@Mike Scholl: i am an IJ fan boy but that does not mean that i want this game to be historically inacurate or something else. and i don't think that the congres would look kindly in the war years on stupid waste of ships and resources if any of the allied comanders made crucial mistakes. by turning this rule off that could be a new dimension in the game (like in UV with the scenario where Midway never happened and the IJN has all the CV lost there). and yes, i would like to play this game and believe that maybe Japan can win the war. otherwise, there would be no point in making the game where u know that if u play Japan, u have apsolutelly no chance of winning. then, this should be the game where everyone is trying to win as allies in shortest time possible. but, thats only my opinion.

anyways, i see that a simple question of how to make somethink a bit different in the game raised too much hussle for nothing. in the end, history is written by the winner, isn't it!? who know how would this game look like if something went wrong during WWII![8|]

@strawbuck: ok, wasnt looking on the forum that i should have done, but i wasnt even questioning the replacements. just wondering if it can be shut down for a game, my game vs. AI so I can try some other stuff in game. and I wasn't aware that only 4 CV's come back, I thougt that every CV sunk comes back (5th, 6th, 7th...if u manage that many[;)]). btw. is there a similar limit to CA's?

[Bradley7735]

Hey Ron,

Thanks a million for the complete list of missing 2nd name US ships. But, wasn't there a baltimore class CA named Chicago 2? (I'm not sure)

bc

[DrewMatrix]

Think of it this way:

The US made 4 Essex Class CVs that are were actually used by the US in the Pacific in Real Life, but which may not apear in the game.

If the US player loses 4 CVs (like in real life) he will get in the game the same 4 CVs that were actually used in the Pacific in Real Life. He does not come out ahead.

If the US player manages to lose _no_ CVs in the game, he does NOT get those 4 CVs that were really built and which were really used in the Pacific. Presumably they are either sent to the Atlantic (the Pacific theater is doing so well there is no need to send more there) or the ships are just left uncompleted. The US had _lots_ of ships itdid not complete because there was clearly no need for them. Note the US was not unable to build all those uncompleted hulls, it chose not to because its strength already was ridiculously overwhelming.

The replacement rule does not give the allied player anything extra. It penalizes the allied player for doing superbly (which might have actually happened in real life too. In Real Life they would possibly have not sent these 4 ships to the Pacific if there were already all those other CVs there and no CV losses in the first 2 years of the war).

[Bradley7735]

Beezle,
It also penalizes the allied player in that, if he loses 4 CV's in mid to late 42, he won't get replacements until 44. Historically all 4 came in in 43. So, most allied players won't be able to mount offensives until early 44. I don't know if anyone looked into this. It might not be possible for an allied player to invade fast enough to win by 8/45. I don't really know, but it seems that the 43 offensive at the Gilberts isn't really possible until 44.
bc

[DrewMatrix]

To Bradley:
Good Point

As an aside regarding the Allied CVs, I only have played against the AI but I find that in WiTP as in UV the Allied _land based_ air is so strong the CVs are almost superfluous. I have no trouble invading just about everywhere concentrically under cover of Land Based air. Any Japanese base or ships that contest these landings just get shredded. Then build up the base there and take another short hop forward.

That may be very different vs a human opponent (I don't play vs a human opponent because I am too hyperactive to only play 1 or 2 turns a day) but I don't see how a human opponent can keep the allied LBA from oozing forward from base to base.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

What does not make sense is to intentionally reduce the carriers just because there is a slight naming hurdle. Now if the "extra" Essex carriers were only built after and as a result of the earlier carrier losses I could understand the current system. Does anyone know if this was in fact the case historically?

Of course the ships were not authorized by Congress every time a ship was sunk. We are not making Jell-O here. Orders were placed for a class run, were altered, renamed or cancelled as the situation warranted, but they were not conceived on a "when and if lost basis." This is completely off base. The spawning feature should be shot at sun up.[8D]

Yes it's like saying the Germans would've went to Total War before '44 if they did not do as well in France or Poland. It just takes the military mystery out of it. Points are important when you've given your best and still didn't win militarily, but with this rule you are either guaranteed military victory for one side or military defeat for the other. [>:]

I'm very unlikely to be playing this again until this fantasy rule is made optional.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Beezle

Think of it this way:

The US made 4 Essex Class CVs that are were actually used by the US in the Pacific in Real Life, but which may not apear in the game.

If the US player loses 4 CVs (like in real life) he will get in the game the same 4 CVs that were actually used in the Pacific in Real Life. He does not come out ahead.

If the US player manages to lose _no_ CVs in the game, he does NOT get those 4 CVs that were really built and which were really used in the Pacific. Presumably they are either sent to the Atlantic (the Pacific theater is doing so well there is no need to send more there) or the ships are just left uncompleted. The US had _lots_ of ships itdid not complete because there was clearly no need for them. Note the US was not unable to build all those uncompleted hulls, it chose not to because its strength already was ridiculously overwhelming.

The replacement rule does not give the allied player anything extra. It penalizes the allied player for doing superbly (which might have actually happened in real life too. In Real Life they would possibly have not sent these 4 ships to the Pacific if there were already all those other CVs there and no CV losses in the first 2 years of the war).

Why do you guys keep talking about "4 CV's" to the total ignorance of ALL the US/Australian CV's, CL's, and CLAA's that respawn? They also spawn "more than once" from what I've heard (maybe only a rumor). I know the manual says "CA's", which many of you are ignoring nonetheless, but ingame it's more than 'just' 4 CV's, and it's more than 'just' CA's. [&:]

[Twotribes]

As has been pointed out in at least one other thread, the US DID have the space to make 24 Essex class carriers. Do we get all 24? Didnt think so.

[Honda]

I for one don't see how the rule damages the Allies. When it comes to Independence CVLs they were, as CVLs basicaly were, quick patches. Conversions were made to fill in deficient fleet CV slots till the time Essex entered service in numbers.
And the ship respawn rule is very nicely explained for what it is. The sooner you accept it the better you are off. Look at it from this POW: what about the ships USN pulled back for second line service. Show me one Allied player who will park Lexy or Sara in SF or use it for shuttling planes about when there are dozens of CVE around to do it. Nobody withdraws a belt armor that thick just because the ship is deemed increasingly impracticle as war goes on. The game doesn't simulate that. When all is said and done, the respawn rule works just fine. Some things are simulated, some not. But the big picture is mostly accurate which is more then good enough for me. Have fun
Everybody...