Respawning Problem - CHS and elsewhere

[pad152]

Question:

What tool are you using to see what's going on?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: pad152

Question:

What tool are you using to see what's going on?

Some very powerful memory view tools from my days at IBM - not commerically available and I can not distribute them.

Sorry

Don

[pad152]

Some very powerful memory view tools from my days at IBM - not commerically available and I can not distribute them.

Sorry

Don

That's ok, I thought that someone had cracked the savegame data format.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Well, with the respawning issue it appears we have two choices:

1. Allow respawn: free up at least 100 slots in the Japanese side and hope to hell we still don't respawn Japanese minesweepers into the allied oob.
2. Go to a full non-respawn version with all empty slots "9999"ed away. This would require that we provide the "missing" allied ships that were previously expected to be taken care of by re-spawn. I know a lot of people have wanted this from the very beginning. I'm starting to warm to this one myself.

I still lke option 1. For the sake of player choice and consistency, maybe we need to go for option 1, then fill the empty slots with filler ships to get a version similar to option 2, but with the same ships present in both scenarios.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Well, with the respawning issue it appears we have two choices:

1. Allow respawn: free up at least 100 slots in the Japanese side and hope to hell we still don't respawn Japanese minesweepers into the allied oob.
2. Go to a full non-respawn version with all empty slots "9999"ed away. This would require that we provide the "missing" allied ships that were previously expected to be taken care of by re-spawn. I know a lot of people have wanted this from the very beginning. I'm starting to warm to this one myself.

I still lke option 1. For the sake of player choice and consistency, maybe we need to go for option 1, then fill the empty slots with filler ships to get a version similar to option 2, but with the same ships present in both scenarios.

OK - been giving this a little thought.

First, I somewhere got the idea that Japanese AGs re-spawned but it appears they do not. Checked the documentation and it only mentions minesweepers. That makes it a little easier.

There are 131 Japanese minesweepers in CHS. What I can't decide is how many empty slots we need:
There is 1 empy Japanese slot
There are 20 reserved for extra Japanese ships.
There are 25 Type SD sea trucks which are less valuable if they do not respawn
There are 28 Japanese ships commissioned after August 1st, 1945 (5 small DD, 11 SS, 6 PC, 2 LST, 4 AK)

Taking all of these would give us 74 slots. Then:
There are 70 Small Japanese LST (late war - 218 capacity)
Idzumo and Iwate (my favorites!)
15 ships total of the small Ma 1 and Toshima class minelayers
As many AK/AP as we want to give up.

From out of these we ought to be able to come up with enough.

For the allies we have over 600 slots and should not have a problem. It's just a matter of balance as to what would be removed.

Opinions??

[Halsey]

The smallest and the slowest.[:D]

[bstarr]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

First, I somewhere got the idea that Japanese AGs re-spawned but it appears they do not.

Yes they do. AG-107 sank off Merak. Several turns later the I pressed create "Create Barges" and good ol' AG-107 was reborn.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

First, I somewhere got the idea that Japanese AGs re-spawned but it appears they do not.

Yes they do. AG-107 sank off Merak. Several turns later the I pressed create "Create Barges" and good ol' AG-107 was reborn.

You are 100% correct. I had assumed the respawn was based on the type "AG" but it appears to be based on class id. The original AGs respawn in place, my new SD type AGs do not. The good news is the in-place bit - it does not require another slot.

Does everyone thing 74 empty slots is enough (for 131 minesweepers) or should we go to 131??

Don

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Does everyone thing 74 empty slots is enough (for 131 minesweepers) or should we go to 131??

Don

What happens when the 75th MWS gets sunk. If I am reading correctly, comments above would indicate it would respawn in a allied slot. Is that what would happen?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Does everyone thing 74 empty slots is enough (for 131 minesweepers) or should we go to 131??

Don

What happens when the 75th MWS gets sunk. If I am reading correctly, comments above would indicate it would respawn in a allied slot. Is that what would happen?

Yes Sir - it would respawn into an allied slot. If we have 100 slots the 101st would go allied. If we have 200 they'd all get respawned and start sinking again and the 201st would go allied. But every empty slot for a minesweeper respawn is another ship the Japanese ain't got. Searching for a reasonable number.

[Ron Saueracker]

I'm a little confused following what happens. Can you sum up what is happenning in the editor ref respawn feature?

Oh...l still can't find any of my MSOffice docs after losing my HD. I'm looking but it does not look good. There is a copy of the ships affected by respawning list somewhere on this board and I believe Pry, TankerAce and Lemurs also received a copy.

And here is a copy off the forum.

Missing US Navy Vessels

**** (denotes vessel needing name)

USN Vessels Omitted/Affected By Spawning Feature/Name Duplication Issue

Essex Class

CV 10 Bon Homme Richard May/43 (historically Yorktown II)
CV 12 Kearsarge Dec/43 (historically Hornet II)
CV 16 Cabot March/43(historically Lexington II)
CV 18 Oriskany Dec/43(historically Wasp II)
CV 31 Reprisal Dec/44(historically Bon Homme Richard) *(Named after cancelled Essex)

Four Essexs in the game arrive early so need to be moved back to original dates.


Independence Class

CVL 28 Chesapeake Aug/43 (historically Cabot)*(Famous Revolutionary War Battle).

Baltimore Class

CA 70 Pittsburg Nov/43 (historically Canberra II)
CA 71 St. Paul Jan/44 (historically Quincy II)
CA 72 Albany Nov/44 (historically Pittsburg)
CA 73 Rochester March/45 (historically St. Paul)

Cleveland Class

CL 64 Flint Feb/44(historically Vincennes II)
CL 81 Vicksburg Jan/44(historically HoustonII)
CL 86 Cheyenne July/44(historically Vicksburg)
CL 90 Wilkes-Barre June/44(historically Astoria II)
CL 103 Buffalo Aug/44(historically Wilkes Barre)
CL104 Tallahassee Jan/45(historically Atlanta II)

Atlanta Class

CL 97 Spokane Oct/44(historically Flint)

These following ships need to be added as they were simply omitted because of name duplication...why DDs and SSs are not respawnable when other classes and MSWs (???) are eludes me. These hull numbers historically were in the Pacific Theatre During WW2 and deserve to be included...who for instance sank Kongo?

Balao Class

SS 313 Nerka Jan/44(historically Perch II)*named after cancelled Balao and sub in "Run Silent, Run Deep".
SS 314 Eel Feb/44(historically Shark II)*named after cancelled Balao
SS 315 Adder March/44(historically Sealion II)*early US sub name

Tench Class

SS 476 Sole Feb/45(historically Runner II)*named after cancelled Balao

Fletcher Class

DD 795 Boon Apr/44(historically Preston II, named after USN DD in C.S. Forrester Short Stories)
DD 796 O'Leary March/44(historically Benham II, named after USN DD in William P Mack novels)
DD 797 McKenna July/44(historically Cushing II, named after "Sand Pebbles" author.
DD 798 Mack Apr/44 (historically Monssen II, named after author W.P. Mack)
DD 799 Caine Aug/44 (historically Jarvis II, named after fictitious Wouk DMS)
DD 800 Percival Aug/44 (historically Porter II, named after cancelled DD )
DD 801 Watson Sep/44 (historically Colhoun II, named after cancelled DD)
DD 802 Oswald A. Powers Sep/44 (historically Gregory II, named after incomplete DE)
DD 803 Groves Nov/44 (historically Little II, named after incomplete DE )

Allen M Sumner Class

DD 722 Keith Sep/44 (historically Barton II, named after main character in 'The Caine Mutiny" and incomplete DE)
DD 723 Alfred Wolf Sep/44 (historically Walke II, named after incomplete DE )
DD 724 Keppler Sep/44 (historically Laffey II, named after cancelled DE)
DD 725 Holman Sep/44 (historically O'Brien II, named after main character in "The Sand Pebbles")
DD 726 Gaynier Sep/44 (historically Meredith II, named after incomplete DE)
DD 727 Curtis W. Howard July/44 (historically DeHaven II, named after incomplete DE)
DD 744 John J. Vanburen July/44 (historically Blue II, named after incomplete DE)
DD 758 Paul G. Baker May/45 (historically Strong II, named after incomplete DE)

Allen M Sumner Minelayer

DM 33 (ex DD 772) Milton Lewis (historically Gwin II, named after incomplete DE)
DM 34 (ex DD 773) George M. Campell (historically Aaron Ward II, named after incomplete DE)

Gearing Class

DD 784 Rogers Blood (historically McKean II, named after cancelled DE)
DD 805 Carpellotti (historically Chevalier II, named after cancelled DE)
DD 877 Francovich (historically Perkins II, named after cancelled DE)

Edsall Class DEs

DE 129 Cramer July/45 (historically named Edsall II, named after incomplete DE)
DE 131 Ely July/45 (historically named Hammann II, named after incomplete DE)
DE 238 Delbert W. Halsey July/45 (historically named Stewart II, named after incomplete DE)

Buckley Class DEs

DE 154 Sheehan Jan/45 (historically named Sims II, named after incomplete DE)



Australian ship affected by respawn...

Tribal Class DD HMAS Kurnai (renamed Bataan)

[Bradley7735]

Don,

The question I'd ask the japanese player is: Would you rather have 74 possible respawned MSW's or would you rather have 74 other ships. Personally, I'd rather have the other ships. Especially as Japan. They only need MSW's in the forward combat areas in the early part of the war. Late in the war, they only need to sweep the sub and air mines. So, their MSW's shouldn't be in the combat zones to get sunk. (not getting shot by enemy CD guns, carriers or surface forces). They are rather small, so they don't get targeted like DD's or AP's do.

Sure, if I ran out or got low, I'd be in a world of hurt, but I don't think I'd go through that many MSW's in 4 years.

My opinion is to fill up the empty slots with real ships (Japanese and allied) and eliminate the entire respawn feature.

If anything, just fill all the remaining Japanese slots with hard coded MSW's so they get 200 or so. (I think you said they get 171)

Great job on figuring out the respawn logic.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Don,

The question I'd ask the japanese player is: Would you rather have 74 possible respawned MSW's or would you rather have 74 other ships. Personally, I'd rather have the other ships. Especially as Japan. They only need MSW's in the forward combat areas in the early part of the war. Late in the war, they only need to sweep the sub and air mines. So, their MSW's shouldn't be in the combat zones to get sunk. (not getting shot by enemy CD guns, carriers or surface forces). They are rather small, so they don't get targeted like DD's or AP's do.

Sure, if I ran out or got low, I'd be in a world of hurt, but I don't think I'd go through that many MSW's in 4 years.

My opinion is to fill up the empty slots with real ships (Japanese and allied) and eliminate the entire respawn feature.

If anything, just fill all the remaining Japanese slots with hard coded MSW's so they get 200 or so. (I think you said they get 171)

Unfortunately there's still the problem of spawn overflow into the allied OOB. If there are no available "spawn to" slots in the Japanese OOB then minesweeper will get plunked down in the allied OOB. If we fill up the empty slots in the Allied OOB then the allies can't respawn - and the carrier oob depends on it.

The short term answer is to free up some number of Japanese slots (how many??).

I've comming around to a long term answer of a non-respawn version, but that means creating fictious ship names (which grates on me).

Anyway - I'm in hold mode waiting for 1.5 to come out. Then I'll merge the OOB changes into CHS, verify the problems have not changed, and then probably cut some number of ships. Still looking for candidates - about to make a post on Type D subs that may contribute.

Don

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Don,

The question I'd ask the japanese player is: Would you rather have 74 possible respawned MSW's or would you rather have 74 other ships. Personally, I'd rather have the other ships. Especially as Japan. They only need MSW's in the forward combat areas in the early part of the war. Late in the war, they only need to sweep the sub and air mines. So, their MSW's shouldn't be in the combat zones to get sunk. (not getting shot by enemy CD guns, carriers or surface forces). They are rather small, so they don't get targeted like DD's or AP's do.

Sure, if I ran out or got low, I'd be in a world of hurt, but I don't think I'd go through that many MSW's in 4 years.

My opinion is to fill up the empty slots with real ships (Japanese and allied) and eliminate the entire respawn feature.

If anything, just fill all the remaining Japanese slots with hard coded MSW's so they get 200 or so. (I think you said they get 171)

Unfortunately there's still the problem of spawn overflow into the allied OOB. If there are no available "spawn to" slots in the Japanese OOB then minesweeper will get plunked down in the allied OOB. If we fill up the empty slots in the Allied OOB then the allies can't respawn - and the carrier oob depends on it.

The short term answer is to free up some number of Japanese slots (how many??).

I've comming around to a long term answer of a non-respawn version, but that means creating fictious ship names (which grates on me).

Anyway - I'm in hold mode waiting for 1.5 to come out. Then I'll merge the OOB changes into CHS, verify the problems have not changed, and then probably cut some number of ships. Still looking for candidates - about to make a post on Type D subs that may contribute.

Don

Fictious names need not be made up. There are enough cancelled USN vessels with unused names to remedy this.

[Andrew Brown]

The short term answer is to free up some number of Japanese slots (how many??).

Difficult question. 100 slots may be enough. I also believe that they don't all have to be Japanese slots. Is that correct?

It won't matter if the slots fill up late in the war. It is early and mid war when they need to be free for Allied respawning to be effective.

That is my view anyway...

[Bodhi]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: pad152

Question:

What tool are you using to see what's going on?

Some very powerful memory view tools from my days at IBM - not commerically available and I can not distribute them.

Sorry

Don

Good job you mainly play against the AI then Don, as I'm sure the more paranoid PBEMers wouldn't want to play you. [:D]

[Don Bowen]

We must decide how to address the re-spawn issue.


Option A is to provide some number of empty slots in the Japanese Naval OOB:

There are 131 Japanese minesweepers that can be respawned in CHS.
There is 1 empty Japanese slot
There are 20 reserved for extra Japanese ships.
There are 25 Type SD sea trucks which are less valuable if they do not respawn
There are 28 Japanese ships commissioned after August 1st, 1945 (5 small DD, 11 SS, 6 PC, 2 LST, 4 AK)
There are 14 Type D1/D2 Cargo submarines without torpedo tubes
There are 70 Small Japanese LST (late war - 218 capacity)
Idzumo and Iwate (my favorites!)
15 ships total of the small Ma 1 and Toshima class minelayers
10 small transports of the Nati Maru class

Based on 131 minesweepers I figure we need at least 100 empty slots. No number is really sufficient as a burst of losses would eventually cause respawn into the allied OOB.


Option B is to turn off respawn by filling all oob slots with either actual ships or "9999" delay slot-fillers:
Add 21 additional Japanese ships - either fictitious warships (room has been provided for 2 CV, 1 BB, 1 AV, 2 CA, 2 CL, 12 DD) or additional historical merchants or AGs.
Add the additional allied ships listed in Ron’s post (above).


Option A is somewhat less work, especially as Option B requires additional air groups for the added carriers. Also note that it has been the intention all along to provide two optional versions of CHS - one with the additional non-historical Japanese Ships and a non-respawn one (albeit with a different technique). The question now the general direction of the "Base" CHS scenario. So please vote:

• Option A: Free up about 100 Japanese slots (your preferences??)
• Option B1: Fill all Japanese slots with historical ships, Add allied ships (above), and fill rest of allied slots with "9999"
• Option B2: As B1 except include 20 additional Japanese might-have-been ships for balance (2 Taiho, 1 Yamato, 1 Akitsushima, 2 Mogami, 1 Oyodo, 1 Agano, 4 Akitsuki, 8 Yugumo)

[Bradley7735]

I would vote for B2. Or B1 at the least.

I like B2 because it gives us the exact historical scenario, except some ship names are a little different. It also assumes that both sides continue to build ships after 8/45 in the case that Japan is still winning at that point. If Japan is kicking @ss, she wouldn't decide to just stop work on hulls after 8/45.

FYI, I personally hate the respawn rules so this is easy for me to answer.

Thanks Don for your help on this and figuring out how respawn works.

bc

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

I would vote for B2. Or B1 at the least.

I like B2 because it gives us the exact historical scenario, except some ship names are a little different. It also assumes that both sides continue to build ships after 8/45 in the case that Japan is still winning at that point. If Japan is kicking @ss, she wouldn't decide to just stop work on hulls after 8/45.

FYI, I personally hate the respawn rules so this is easy for me to answer.

Thanks Don for your help on this and figuring out how respawn works.

bc

I would vote as Bradley. B2 or B1 in a pinch. Everyone knows my views on respawn.

[Twotribes]

If my vote counts B2 would be acceptable.


Seperate question. Why not provide the historical allied ships that appear later in 45 and up to the end date in 46? As I understand it they are not currently in the OOB. The fact is ( for those willing to complain) that if the US had lost a lot of carriers those later carriers would have had shortened trials and would have appeared in the Pacific. Also provide some of the ships from the Atlantic that didnt make it in some of those slots with late year 45 early 46 arrival dates.

If the war is still going on then it is reasonable to assume the US and even Britian would have moved ships from that theater if they hadnt already been sent.

That will fill some of the allied slots with real ships and since your providing a what if for the Japanese would provide a late war what if for the Allies to help counter any late war shift by the Japanese.

While on about late war, what about allied land units that were earmarked for arrival in Pacific Theater if the war went on? Are they included in the current OOB? Add them too if the war drags on.