Aircraft torpedoes missing

[rustysi]

Allied CV´s sunk generate a replacement CV of the same name

At least this one may have some truth to it... From the manual p255.

16.1.1 AUTOMATIC SHIP REPLACEMENTS
There are several instances in which replacement ships may be provided as reinforcements
if a ship is sunk during the game. Replacement ships are generated if the option is selected
for the scenario and:
An American CV is sunk prior to 1944 will be replaced by an Essex-class CV.
An American or Australian CA that is sunk prior to 1944 will be replaced by a Baltimore-class
CA or a Cleveland-class CL. The replacement class is chosen at random.
Japanese Midget Submarines will be replaced with a Type “D” Midget Submarine
Whenever a replacement ship is created, it will be placed in the reinforcement list and given an
arrival time of at least 450 days from the date the original ship was sunk.

Unless I'm reading it wrong.[:)]

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Allied CV´s sunk generate a replacement CV of the same name

At least this one may have some truth to it... From the manual p255.

Unless I'm reading it wrong.[:)]

Your reading skills are top notch.

But this is one of the rare cases of the manual being wrong. The automatic replacement carriers of the old WitP never made it into AE.

In AE the hulls that historically replaced CV losses are layed down independently whether the original CV has been sunk or not.

[rustysi]

Ahhhh! Good to know, thanks.[;)]

Edit: At least in this case we can see/understand where the 'forum lore' came from.

[rustysi]

In AE the hulls that historically replaced CV losses are layed down independently whether the original CV has been sunk or not.

Which mimics RL. Historically these hulls were already in the works, the US just renamed them for lost vessels.

[BillBrown]

The manual is not wrong. It says that the option has to be selected for that scenario. I know of no
scenarios that have the respawn option set on.

Editor, scenario 1, scenario tab:

[rustysi]

But if the option isn't set that precludes it from happening. Just seems to me like an easy way for the programmers to get rid of it, for whatever reason.

[BillBrown]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

But if the option isn't set that precludes it from happening. Just seems to me like an easy way for the programmers to get rid of it, for whatever reason.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. The option is available, the manual is exactly correct.
It is rare, but LoBaron is incorrect. Just because the scenario designers have not utilized the option
is of no importance.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

But if the option isn't set that precludes it from happening. Just seems to me like an easy way for the programmers to get rid of it, for whatever reason.

Exactly.

BillBrown, admittedly I am unfair in citing the manual being wrong.

Still, the interpretation of many of the WitP vets was that the same logic that replaces every single Allied fleet CV loss prior to '44 - as it was the case in WitP - is active in the standard AE scenarios as well. Which is not true but often gets represented as 'common knowledge' on the forums.

[rustysi]

If you think about it its a bad option anyway. If I were playing the Allies I could care less how many CV's I'd lost as long as I took some Japanese CV's with me. I'd have the knowledge that I'll get mine back. To assume the US could just crank out new CV's without concern is just foolish. Yes, US industrial capacity was immense, but it was not unlimited. Maybe this is why the dev's decided to change it? Don't know, but I don't think it should be unlimited anyway. After all you'll still get all available hulls that were historically built.

[BillBrown]

I never made any statement about what I thought about the option. I have no idea why it is there, but I suspect
it was put in early in the development and none of the scenario designers opted to use it.

I just wanted to make sure that the information given was as correct as possible.

[Itdepends]

Morning Bobdina,
take a chill pill, the thread started two years ago, about three months after you joined the forum. Not much point relating it to what you're seeing in the forum in the last month. While I've got my soapbox out, to paraphrase you; I wasn't talking to you to begin with [:D][:D]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I never made any statement about what I thought about the option. I have no idea why it is there, but I suspect
it was put in early in the development and none of the scenario designers opted to use it.

I just wanted to make sure that the information given was as correct as possible.

For the rationale of respawning, both pro and con, read wdolson's post in this thread.

tm.asp?m=3713779&mpage=1&key=respawn&#3713796

It has been explained on many occasions by the devs but the above is the best single exposition of the arguments. The respawning feature was a big controversial feature of classical WITP. It penalised good Allied play and rewarded poor Allied play.

It is important to not misinterpret the treatment accorded to sunk barges etc, which are replaced, with the sunk ship types which respawn if that option is selected by the scenario designer. A respawned ship does not occupy the same ship slot in the ship database. This is important for listing on the sunk ships list. The sunk ship list can only display a ship which occupies a unique slot and which slot is not overwritten by another ship. Sunk barges etc are not displayed on the sunk ship list because they are replaced by another barge etc occupying the exact same slot.

Alfred

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

If you think about it its a bad option anyway. If I were playing the Allies I could care less how many CV's I'd lost as long as I took some Japanese CV's with me. I'd have the knowledge that I'll get mine back. To assume the US could just crank out new CV's without concern is just foolish. Yes, US industrial capacity was immense, but it was not unlimited. Maybe this is why the dev's decided to change it? Don't know, but I don't think it should be unlimited anyway. After all you'll still get all available hulls that were historically built.

I actually could care less how many times someone says he could care less when he means he couldn't care less. [:-][:'(]

[geofflambert]

Oh, I meant to say, the HQs ability to supply torps to squadrons also crosses open water; as long as it is within its command radius. This can be of great value if you're talking the Gilbert Islands for instance.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: rustysi

If you think about it its a bad option anyway. If I were playing the Allies I could care less how many CV's I'd lost as long as I took some Japanese CV's with me. I'd have the knowledge that I'll get mine back. To assume the US could just crank out new CV's without concern is just foolish. Yes, US industrial capacity was immense, but it was not unlimited. Maybe this is why the dev's decided to change it? Don't know, but I don't think it should be unlimited anyway. After all you'll still get all available hulls that were historically built.

I actually could care less how many times someone says he could care less when he means he couldn't care less. [:-][:'(]

Oops, I stand corrected.[:)]

[bobdina]

First of all I've be here for over 6 years. The forum has a way of eating names just ask Roger Neilson III. No but it's those comments that have driven away experts from here and are uncalled for. By the way nice getting me back with my own comment,kudos.

[1EyedJacks]

Jeepers folks - the thread is from 2014… If you wanna beat someone up for something they said yesterday I might-could understand but the original comments are almost 2 years old… (of course my wife can remember things from back before we were married but she normally doesn't display that talent unless we're in a fight <grin>)

I've been digging up some of Alfred's gems for my own notes. I saw this and added a couple of pics as an info-share for some of the new folk. I sure didn't mean to stir anything up.

I guess I should have posted something to the effect that this was an old thread but didn't think about it. I just assumed folks would see the date of the OP but, you know the story about me and assumptions… Sometimes they make an ass outta me…

Peace.

[LoBaron]

Damned sneaky resurrection wizard. [X(][:D]

[bobdina]

What I USUALLY do is look at the year of the post before I ever think about commenting , however you saw what happened yesterday so I guess it wasn't a hard fast rule however it will be now. My apologies all.

[Yaab]

Maybe the HQ unit got so big, that the torpedoes rolled from an atoll in a sea? Talk about overstacking those tiny Pacific islands...