RHS scenarios (revised)

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I HATE the respawn feature.

If I am not confused, respawn occurs in different places for different ships. Thus, minesweepers have their own respawn area. This seems good - we can let a reasonable number of minesweepers exist and replace if needed. This is what CHS people think. IF they are right, I will probably keep respawn for minor vessels.

I don't care if ships rename in code. If you lose Enterprise and want to call the next Essex "Enterprise II" - just call it that. Why should code have to worry about that? I think it is enough if a ship has her original name.

This is not true. If you fill up all the allied slots, but leave some Japanese slots open, then the first respawnable allied ship that sinks will respawn as a Japanese ship (because the only slot open is Japanese.) I tried this once. I filled up all the allied slots and left about 100 open for the Japanese. Well, USS Penguin sank at Guam the first day and in the list the next day was USS Penguin slated to appear in Tokyo. I assume the reverse works as well. I don't think you can stop some ships from respawning and allowing others to. It's an all or nothing thing.

[el cid again]

If you fill up all the allied slots, but leave some Japanese slots open, then the first respawnable allied ship that sinks will respawn as a Japanese ship

Fear not. CHS 1.6 used 100% of Japanese ship slots. 1.7 changes what ships are in it - but only by killing 1 for 1 - thus a second Shinano (as a battleship) came by killing a merchant ship. There will be NO free slots for Japan.

I just about used 100% of the Allied slots with the Soviet Fleet.

Note that in your example what respawned was a tiny vessel - these appear to use different code than major ones. It is minor ones that may be OK - and I am a test technician - I will test to see if it works. Or seems to - there is no guarantee that everything will be perfect.

[el cid again]

I don't think you can stop some ships from respawning and allowing others to. It's an all or nothing thing.

You may be correct. Which is unfortunate - it means we have a big problem with landing craft and minesweepers (etc). IF testing reveals you are correct, I think it can be solved by killing it - and trading minor auxiliaries for valuable ones - leaving no free slots to respawn in ought to work. If only we could do code... but that is for the future.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I HATE the respawn feature.

If I am not confused, respawn occurs in different places for different ships. Thus, minesweepers have their own respawn area. This seems good - we can let a reasonable number of minesweepers exist and replace if needed. This is what CHS people think. IF they are right, I will probably keep respawn for minor vessels.

I don't care if ships rename in code. If you lose Enterprise and want to call the next Essex "Enterprise II" - just call it that. Why should code have to worry about that? I think it is enough if a ship has her original name.

The class number needs to be changed for MSWs though. I think the respawned ones appear as old Bird class when one would think the most modern available class would be the default respawn class.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I will review this in US Cruisers, but I think there were changes. There were essentially 2 classes of CVLs - one based on CL hulls and one based on CA hulls. At least the latter were late additions. I think the plan that matters is the one at war start - not the one of 1940 or some earlier period - that was my standard for Japan. You are stuck with what was planned when the war breaks out. Japan can cancel things - the US can't (unfortunately) - but also it does not matter - the US can afford it and will get everything it has building. [You don't have to use it of couse]. As I recall there were about 3 CA conversions completed, and maybe a few more planned.

All 9 CVL's the US launched in WWII were based on the CLEVELAND class CL hulls. There was some discussion of a second group based on the BALTIMORE class CA hulls, but they were never laid down.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I will review this in US Cruisers, but I think there were changes. There were essentially 2 classes of CVLs - one based on CL hulls and one based on CA hulls. At least the latter were late additions. I think the plan that matters is the one at war start - not the one of 1940 or some earlier period - that was my standard for Japan. You are stuck with what was planned when the war breaks out. Japan can cancel things - the US can't (unfortunately) - but also it does not matter - the US can afford it and will get everything it has building. [You don't have to use it of couse]. As I recall there were about 3 CA conversions completed, and maybe a few more planned.

All 9 CVL's the US launched in WWII were based on the CLEVELAND class CL hulls. There was some discussion of a second group based on the BALTIMORE class CA hulls, but they were never laid down.

CVL Saipan and Wright?

[el cid again]

All 9 CVL's the US launched in WWII were based on the CLEVELAND class CL hulls. There was some discussion of a second group based on the BALTIMORE class CA hulls, but they were never laid down.

Saipan and Wright actually converted. They launch in July and September 1945 respectively. This means they are NOT available in the game as CAs - and if the war lasts long enough - they should show up as CVLs. Saipan historically commissioned 14 July 1946 and Wright on 9 Feb 1947 - both completed at a less than wartime pace. These are not fictional ships - and they began as CA 48 and 49. Our war runs into 1946 - so they are real possibilities in either form.