Get rid of auxiliary MS and PC??????

[el cid again]

In order to free up ship name slots for ships that are not now in CHS, I propose to get rid of the auxilary minesweepers and sub chasers. I feel these units are wrongly present in the first place.

Problem 1: WITP and CHS define these vessels as being the same class as the regular MS and PCs - which means just as good. Further, it appears both functions more or less rate all of them as the same (no definitons of sonar more or less require this). Yet the auxilaries are nothing like as well equipped to detect submarines or sweep mines. So the auxiliaries as defined actually function as if they were the regular vessels, even though they are not nearly as good. [How many subs were sunk by auxilary PCs????]

Problem 2: There are many hundreds of similar vessels. By 1945 Japan had depth charges on a vast array of vessels - but it didn't turn them into effective ASW ships in most cases. IF WITP and CHS have properly included the auxiliaries - they SHOULD ALSO include all the uncounted vessels. Yet that is impossible - there are NO more name slots - and the system is not designed to have hundreds more added. There were 200 vessels actually built in just a single class of aux PCs!

Problem 3: Japan COULD HAVE built more of its effective naval auxiliaries - and it did actually order more than were completed. By replacing some of the "junk" vessels with "good" ones - we would give players the option of a larger force of "good" ones - provided they do not cancel them (as the Japanese historically did). If you just plain do not like PCs and/or MS, you MIGHT cancel them too.

Mechanics: Slots 873 to 902 are used for auxilary PCs. Slots 572 to 643 are used for auxiliary MS. Getting rid of the auxilaries in these slots would provide a reasonable number of slots for working with present and future mods. [No project of this sort should EVER use 100% of the slots - in principle].

[Sardaukar]

I'd not mind getting rid of those Sub Chasers. I never find any use for them.

[Ron Saueracker]

What ships are you thinking of replacing these slots with? Fictional stuff or what? There are not too many ship classes missing that I'm aware of, especially when one considers that if Montanas or Japanese dreams etc are added, these will have less of an impact on the overall outcome and none whatsoever on the crucial and arguably decisive 42/43 period. At least he smaller ships do. I am also concerned that the limited logistical model will make Japanese ship production capacity as wonky as the aircraft production, which has been further screwed by the PDU feature (sure it's toggled but good luck finding a player who will toggle it off.)

[scott64]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I'd not mind getting rid of those Sub Chasers. I never find any use for them.

They get good use for the other sides torpedoes.

[el cid again]

What ships are you thinking of replacing these slots with? Fictional stuff or what? There are not too many ship classes missing that I'm aware of, especially when one considers that if Montanas or Japanese dreams etc are added, these will have less of an impact on the overall outcome and none whatsoever on the crucial and arguably decisive 42/43 period. At least he smaller ships do. I am also concerned that the limited logistical model will make Japanese ship production capacity as wonky as the aircraft production, which has been further screwed by the PDU feature (sure it's toggled but good luck finding a player who will toggle it off.)

Three kinds of ships should be considered for addition:

1) Ships that were planned for construction, and actually under construction, but the end of the war prevented their service. Since OUR game war lasts four months into 1946 - that is more than eight months after the end of the historical war - many ships might have completed. In Japan's case, they will still NOT complete UNLESS the economy is working - so the Allied attacks on the factories and resources and lines of communication for those resources really matter.

2) Ships that were actually built but are NOT included in the game. In particular, the Japanese major amphibs are vital, and missing. But there are others.

3) Ships that were actually planned, and in most cases laid down, but which were cancelled. In our fictional world, where Pearl Harbor may not have happened as it really did, the players may or may not want to make the same choices. Let them cancel a ship they do not want. If a battleship fan keeps Shinano and Job 111 building (or two more Iowas), it may be a mistake. They show up very late in the war, and they will use a lot of resources that otherwise would have produced up to 150 other ships.

One advantage of this change is that the game increases uncertainty. Right now you know pretty exactly what he is going to get. The more things on the list, the less you can be sure of what he cancelled, and what he did not?

[witpqs]

The Allied player has zero control over ship construction - so the Allies cannot choose to build, cancel, accelerate, etc.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The Allied player has zero control over ship construction - so the Allies cannot choose to build, cancel, accelerate, etc.

Which s**ks...[:(]

[el cid again]

The Allied player has zero control over ship construction - so the Allies cannot choose to build, cancel, accelerate, etc.

You do not understand my proposal. In effect, I am changing that, in specific cases.

Note, however, this thread is about cancelling JAPANESE auxiliary MS and PC to free up ship name slots and to render the game more consistent (why only SOME auxiliary MS and PC count, others not? why to almost unarmed and no sensor vessels rated equal to proper specialist ships?). And of course the Japanese DO have control over building or cancelling a hull, so my remarks were in that context.

However, note that for a hull that has two forms (to take a typical Allied example, a CL that may remain as such or convert to a CVL) - you gain control over the conversion by either allowing or not allowing the ship to upgrade after the historical date the first unit of the class was competed. If you want to keep her as a CL, fine - but if you enter a port which could upgrade her - and if other conditions would allow the upgrade - you need to DISALLOW upgrades.

If this is not satisfactory, I will make this general offer: it takes me approximately one minute to make the scenario any way you wish. Just tell me "ship xyz is to remain a CL" or whatever, and I will send it back to you in that form - same day. As long as the ships are defined already - and it does not require research or new slots - I can turn on or off anything you like (or don't). As Arnold might say "no problema."

[Ron Saueracker]

Ahhhh....I can't agree. I would have liked to have seen the refit model designed a little differently than as is. Right now we get the new refit simultaneously with the system damage, which means that basically a ship can refit in a blink of an eye and for all intents and purposes be rebuilt and ready for action. I suggested that at the very least they reverse this so that the system hits first, then the goodies come when zeroed. The present does not make a whole lot of sense unless it is a programming issue. I advocated some other more time consuming details to the refit issue but many of the testers and designers believed it would slow down the game too much.

I also wanted such things as major rebuilds to exist for Allies as well. Aside from some auxilliary conversions the Allies have nothing. The prewar BBs should have been included here. These major rebuilds like those done to California class and the West Virginia took over a year (not including damage repairs from PH), so these should not have been treated as simple refits.

Aside from that and a few minor thing, I see no need for Allied ability to control production. Japan's sphere of influence is confined to the map. The Allies for the most part have commitments offmap, so any ability given to the player to control production would be offbase in my opinion. The game is getting too RTS with some of the design excesses already.

As for allowing Clevelands to convert to Independence CVLs using the refit model, this is just puts too much strain on the add water and stir instant refits we get with the refit model now.

[witpqs]

el cid again,

You also mentioned the Allied player having the option to build the 2 additional Iowa BB's. Maybe you can explain your proposal better. Are you talking about converting some other ship to the 2 Iowas? Maybe an otherwise empty placeholder ship?

I knew you mostly mentioned Japanese, but you threw in Allies a couple of times so I responded in csae you didn't know about the Allies' lack of control over production.

Thanks for the offer of customizing, much appreciated. I would like to stick with the main scenario for compatibility with other folks.

[el cid again]

As for allowing Clevelands to convert to Independence CVLs using the refit model, this is just puts too much strain on the add water and stir instant refits we get with the refit model now.

The refit mechanism works. It requires no coding. And it permits me to give you your battleship upgrades. I too WISH it involved greater delay - but remember - you cannot just refit anywhere under any conditions. Getting to the right place is a sort of delay in its own right - or can be if you didn't just hang out waiting for it.

I see no problem with converting more CVLs at all. Why 6 instead of 5 or 7 of one class - for CLs. And 2 instead of 3 for a CA hull? The allies COULD HAVE fielded dozens - and maybe they SHOULD have? No less a person of "political influence" than FDR wanted to convert ALL of them!

Frankly, I believe a big problem with historical simulation is creating uncertainty. Players just plain know too much history, and scenarios are way too rigid in terms of not allowing really practical options that real leaders really had. So opposing players are very rarely surprised by things like a different investment strategy.

Finally, note that you NEVER have to change ANYTHING. In fact, I think that is a likely choice. Many players will agree with the technical historians who think CVLs were not efficient - and will prefer the cruisers. Many players are secret (or open) battleship admirals, and will prefer the two extra Iowas - no matter it costs them 300 destoyers (or equal in other smaller vessels) by 1945. And it may be better historical simulation to program in the 1941/2 building programs than to tie everything to the radical changes which occurred in those programs after Pearl Harbor and Midway. If in YOUR game PH and Midway do not happen, those changes are actually NOT probable. It is a basic military principle to get or preserve as many options as possible - it is never a bad thing.

[el cid again]

You also mentioned the Allied player having the option to build the 2 additional Iowa BB's. Maybe you can explain your proposal better. Are you talking about converting some other ship to the 2 Iowas? Maybe an otherwise empty placeholder ship?

That is easy as pie - and I already did it. Since Iowas are defined - and since historical Iowas were really building - and named - I just ADDED the two ships. Both show up on the dates they would have shown up had the war not ended. Now when I did that (early), I didn't realize the Allies could not cancel them - and one programmer said they could (apparently in error). It may be these ships go into the alternate "Allied enhansed" scenario down the road - except that MORE battleships may not be really "enhansed"! Maybe we do a "battleship heavy" scenario - "balanced" with two extra Iowas and the two extra Yamatos. [Except the Yamatos are not both extra - Shinano probably would have completed as a battleship sans Midway]. But anyone wants an Iowa in any scenario - I can do that in about 30 seconds if you don't know how.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

That is easy as pie - and I already did it. Since Iowas are defined - and since historical Iowas were really building - and named - I just ADDED the two ships. Both show up on the dates they would have shown up had the war not ended. Now when I did that (early), I didn't realize the Allies could not cancel them - and one programmer said they could (apparently in error). It may be these ships go into the alternate "Allied enhansed" scenario down the road - except that MORE battleships may not be really "enhansed"! Maybe we do a "battleship heavy" scenario - "balanced" with two extra Iowas and the two extra Yamatos. [Except the Yamatos are not both extra - Shinano probably would have completed as a battleship sans Midway]. But anyone wants an Iowa in any scenario - I can do that in about 30 seconds if you don't know how.

Got it. I knew you could add them, I thought you had a way of making them player optional during the game.

[el cid again]

Got it. I knew you could add them, I thought you had a way of making them player optional during the game.

So did I once. And since the code exists to allow Japan to do it, it is not hard to change that. IF Matrix wants to. So long as they are upgrading this product, we should lobby and hope for whatever changes we like. But in principle the code could be duplicated for the Allies.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

As for allowing Clevelands to convert to Independence CVLs using the refit model, this is just puts too much strain on the add water and stir instant refits we get with the refit model now.

The refit mechanism works. It requires no coding. And it permits me to give you your battleship upgrades. I too WISH it involved greater delay - but remember - you cannot just refit anywhere under any conditions. Getting to the right place is a sort of delay in its own right - or can be if you didn't just hang out waiting for it.

I see no problem with converting more CVLs at all. Why 6 instead of 5 or 7 of one class - for CLs. And 2 instead of 3 for a CA hull? The allies COULD HAVE fielded dozens - and maybe they SHOULD have? No less a person of "political influence" than FDR wanted to convert ALL of them!

Frankly, I believe a big problem with historical simulation is creating uncertainty. Players just plain know too much history, and scenarios are way too rigid in terms of not allowing really practical options that real leaders really had. So opposing players are very rarely surprised by things like a different investment strategy.

Finally, note that you NEVER have to change ANYTHING. In fact, I think that is a likely choice. Many players will agree with the technical historians who think CVLs were not efficient - and will prefer the cruisers. Many players are secret (or open) battleship admirals, and will prefer the two extra Iowas - no matter it costs them 300 destoyers (or equal in other smaller vessels) by 1945. And it may be better historical simulation to program in the 1941/2 building programs than to tie everything to the radical changes which occurred in those programs after Pearl Harbor and Midway. If in YOUR game PH and Midway do not happen, those changes are actually NOT probable. It is a basic military principle to get or preserve as many options as possible - it is never a bad thing.

El Cid. It is one thing to have hard coded conversions where if the player chooses to convert the Clevelands to Independences a huge delay period (1-2 year?) would be sufferred for so doing. This conversion must also be assumed to have been decided when the ships wre in the early stages of construction, not when they arive as CLs in the pipeline. Going with your idea, the player simply leaves the refit to ON and prestothe very next day has a CVL sitting in port with a wee bit of system damage. The CVL can sortie the very next turn!

Ugggg...I would hate to see the CHS become PTO. Perhaps the CHS should stay true to it's name and remain as historically acurate as possible. For those who wish to fiddle with it, then it can be used as a starting point, but I'd like to see the "official" CHS remain as it was intended.

The refit mechanism works. It requires no coding. And it permits me to give you your battleship upgrades.

We already have these, despite the fact that it requires only a wee bit of system damage to achieve as opposed to the 1+ years they historically took. I play with a house rule here...I have to note down ALL the house rules needed to get the game anywhere near where I want it, and finding opponents is getting difficult because of it.

I see no problem with converting more CVLs at all. Why 6 instead of 5 or 7 of one class - for CLs. And 2 instead of 3 for a CA hull? The allies COULD HAVE fielded dozens - and maybe they SHOULD have? No less a person of "political influence" than FDR wanted to convert ALL of them!

Frankly, I believe a big problem with historical simulation is creating uncertainty. Players just plain know too much history, and scenarios are way too rigid in terms of not allowing really practical options that real leaders really had. So opposing players are very rarely surprised by things like a different investment strategy.

Seriously, do you really think this will add to the uncertainty? I think not, All we will end up with is a whack of CVLs a;;owing the Allied player to form numerous Death Stars as opposed to the one or two than can be fielded with historicall hulls. The PDU feature has shown us that all will that will happen is further seperate the game from reality and bring it that much closer to a toy.

[el cid again]

El Cid. It is one thing to have hard coded conversions where if the player chooses to convert the Clevelands to Independences a huge delay period (1-2 year?) would be sufferred for so doing. This conversion must also be assumed to have been decided when the ships wre in the early stages of construction, not when they arive as CLs in the pipeline. Going with your idea, the player simply leaves the refit to ON and prestothe very next day has a CVL sitting in port with a wee bit of system damage. The CVL can sortie the very next turn!

You are forgetting something. The conversions are NOT for older classes of ships (except for historical conversions to, say, battleships). The CVLs are conversions of NEW classes - and in fact the carriers show up FASTER than the cruisers on the same hull - really they do (simpler to build). You are going to get NEITHER ship to begin with - and you cannot convert the new ship until AFTER it arrives. IF we allowed the ship to arrive as a CL, and then you convert it, in effect we are delaying the whole ship. Just where to make the trade off is an interesting question? But it is anything but giving the player lots of stuff early - it just SEEMS like you do because the technical conversion process is so fast. If I complete the CL when she could have - AFTER the conversion - and THEN you convert her to a CVL - it is still later than the historical CVL was. The only thing you gain is control over how MANY CVLs you get - as many or few as you want of that class. And you gain flexability - you can brew up some later if you change your mind for some reason.

[el cid again]

Ugggg...I would hate to see the CHS become PTO. Perhaps the CHS should stay true to it's name and remain as historically acurate as possible

This is a sore point with me. Because I do not think it is "true to history" to IGNORE HISTORICAL in place building programs when the reason for their change (e.g. battleships resting on the bottom of Pearl Harbor) didn't happen. If that didn't happen, and Adm Kimmel remains boss of Pacific Fleet, do you really think it is likely we would have made the changes we did? Similarly, sans Midway, would Shinano have been converted? Is it "historical" to say otherwise? I think not. I think building programs - years in the making - have a political inertia hard to stop. I also think leaders CAN change things. If you cannot change ANYTHING - why are you pretending to be boss?

I also think that you miss a big part of simulating history if you do not face uncertainty. YOU know that Yamato has nine 18 inch guns - but in 1941 most people suspected she might have something like twelve 16 inch guns (sort of a triple turreted Nagato). You know LOTS of things Kimmel did not - even things we never learned until 1945 - and other things we didn't learn until mid war. You can avoid surface combat against Long Lance armed ships - but we had no clue it was a problem in 1942. Putting options in a scenario does not mean you MUST implement them - you can always tie yourself to "historical" things - even if they are wildly improbable (e.g Shinano in a game without a Midway). But is that grounds to forbid everyone from having options? I hope not.

[el cid again]

Seriously, do you really think this will add to the uncertainty? I think not, All we will end up with is a whack of CVLs a;;owing the Allied player to form numerous Death Stars as opposed to the one or two than can be fielded with historicall hulls. The PDU feature has shown us that all will that will happen is further seperate the game from reality and bring it that much closer to a toy.

Yes I do. I find that building programs are something that greatly increases uncertainty. And many gamers are far too conservative - they won't make the 'right' choices if you let them have pretty ships - like battleships and cruisers. Also, there is a possibility - seriously - that Japan made TOO MANY airplanes -and maybe would have been better off with fewer air units, and if so maybe fewer ships to carry them? [What good are airplanes without pilots or fuel to fly them?] Anyway, there really are people who want six Iowas, four Yamatos, etc. NO game is "historical" in that it can recreat Savo Island or Midway per se. The longer you play the more ahistorical you must become - of statistical necessity. You make different choices - so does the other side. I think those choices would be better if you have more options - because the real people had more options. Really they did. If we MUST make the SAME choices they did - well read a history book - you are not simulating being in command - which is MAKING choices.

[Ron Saueracker]

El Cid. Sounds like you have some solid ideas for a follow on version of the CHS. Have you looked in Aikichi's mod? Much the same theme...historical distortion or fiction. It does add to the uncertainty of the scenario though. But again, I believe the CHS is supposed to be a historical template. As such, it is perfectly suited as a start point for any what if style scenarios.

[el cid again]

But again, I believe the CHS is supposed to be a historical template. As such, it is perfectly suited as a start point for any what if style scenarios.

Harmony at last - and I thought it was all going to be sour chords. [Sorry - I am a choral singer - including US Navy Bluejackets Choir choral singer].

Yes - CHS is vastly superior to WITP stock - although to its credit WITP gave us rather fabulous access and editors. I think we disagree about what is "historical" - I think for example that any scenario that does not begin with a rigid Dec 7 turn probably has ahistorical ships in the stream - and almost ALL games are ahistorical if they make you take Shinano as a carrier - something not contemplated prior to Midway. UNLESS you have a Midway type action at about the same time, it would not have been converted. I don't know why in that context you think it is "historical" modeling to make it appear, but it clearly isn't - IMHO. In the end there probably needs to be more than one scenario - and maybe there might be some variation in classes between them - although that is a new concept as far as I can tell.