US CV "rebirth" rule

[DrewMatrix]

Hehehe

I looked at that site:http://www.history.navy.mil

They have a lot of information there. One is quickly overloaded.

I found that "AC" is the abbreviation for:
Accounts
Admiral Commanding
Air Corps
Aircraft
Allis Chalmers Ship Engines
Alternating Current
Amphibious Corps
Collier class ships
Acid, Cyanic (ie Cyanic Acid)


Glad that is clear!

Anyhow there is a LOT at that site.

[hithere]

Like i said..you can kill alot of work time!! the first link should take you directly to the Essex page...i just tested it. just in case...here it is again:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/cv/cv9cl.htm

[Onime No Kyo]

Any chance that there has been a coherent stance on this from Matrix?

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

Any chance that there has been a coherent stance on this from Matrix?

It's really 2X3 Games (Gary Grigsby in the forefront) that drove this. It won't change. It was booted about during the Alpha phase and this is where it will stay, so far as I can see.

[Zigfreid]

Lets not forget the A-bomb. Certainly the A-bombs and their effects on the Japanese shortened the war. We are however, playing a game where these weapons may never get used. The presence of additional, yet historically available carriers seems a credible want. There were no promises with the use of the bombs, or even if they would have been used at all. The actual people at the time were thinking an invasion of Japan itself was the only other solution. Certainly a invasion of that magnetude warrants the use of additional offensive and /or defensive local air power.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan
I think that this was an attempt to kill two birds with one stone, and missed both.

Couldn't agree with you more, Dad. Unless it was an attempt to kill two stones with one bird.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Zigfreid
Certainly a invasion of that magnetude warrants the use of additional offensive and /or defensive local air power.

Yes! Good point. The invasion of Japan needed as much locally available airpower as could possibly be made available. No shutdown of the Essex carrier assembly line would have been contemplated as long as the need for this invasion was perceived.

Use of the atomic bomb alone indicates how strongly the US leadership was interested in crushing the last resistance out of the Japanese. More carriers meant more power. Power was the name of the game, particularly in response to what was anticipated to be fanatical resistance, as evidenced by the use of suicide weapons against the Allied fleets in early-to-mid 1945. More carriers, jets and other advanced aircraft, he11, even phasers a la Starship Enterprise would have been welcome to the Allied high command in August 1945.

[Zigfreid]

well, lets not get crazy pat ,lol

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: hithere

Also, I believe that they US did complete 7 Essex carriers for combat in 1943, so I believe that this is realistic.

Essex (CV-9) , Bunker Hill (CV-17) , Yorktown (CV-10) , Lexington (CV-16), Intrepid, (CV-11), Hornet (CV-12) , Wasp (CV-18).

The Hornet, Wasp and Intrepid were "commisioned" in late 43 but were not operational until 1944. It might have been possible to push up the entry of Intrepid slightly,
and thru extrodinary effort maybe even the Hornet and Wasp. BUT the notion that the US had near infinite ship building capacity as early as 1942 has no basis to the reality of the situation. The primary CV ship yards Newport News and Quincy were already operating at capacity and the secondary yards Philly, New York and Norfork were just gearing up. Contrary what some like the believe yards with slips large enough and with the appropriate infrastructure were a finite resource in 1942. Now if your talking about 1944/45 you get no arguement, but I will say again that the losses in 1942 had no impact on the number of CVs launced in 1943 historically. So why does it in the game? Why does even historical losses result in unhistorical numbers of CVs deployed in 1943?

[Twotribes]

Once again, if the US loses 6 to 9 carriers ( especially early in the war) they will likely lose to automatic Japanese victory. As for the CV avaialble in 43, 2 of the essex listed as avaialble in 43 wont even appear if you dont lose at least 2 america carriers early enough for them to be rebuilt by 43. 550 days is closing on 2 years. 365 days plus 185 means you have to lose 2 carriers before 185 days have been used in 42 in order to get the historical 4 carriers in 43 alone.

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

15.1.1 Automatic Ship Replacements

There are several instances in which replacement ships will be provided as reinforcements if a ship is sunk during the game. Replacement ships are generated if:

* An American CV is sunk prior to 1944 will be replaced by an Essex-class CV.

Open the Scenario 15 database and select the Ships Tab, then go to slot 3002 which is where the US CVs start. Slots 3002 through 3020 are populated with carrier names (a total of 19). 9 of those ships are eligible for that rule should they be sunk (the 6 pre-war and 3 Essex class). Should the Allied player be unlucky or be born under a bad star, he could theoretically see 22 Essex Class CVs enter the game.

I must not have been fully awake when posting this point. The Allied Player could theoretically see 27 Essex Class CVs enter the game. For this to happen, the Allied Player must be suicidal or really suck.

5 of the 6 pre-war CVs are sunk twice. That's 10 "re-spawns"; 5 in mid to late 1943 and 5 more in early 1945.
(10 Essex)
The 6th pre-war arrives in July 42 and could only "re-spawn" once.
(11 Essex)
3 Essex Class can re-spawn once, that's 3 more
(17 Essex - 3 in game + 3 re-spawn)
10 Essex Class don't arrive early enough to re-spawn.
(27 Essex)

Keep in mind, when a ship "re-spawns", it uses the slot the sunken ship did, e.g. if Lexington class Saratoga (slot 3004) sinks, the Essex version of Saratoga uses that same slot, so at one time, there can be no more than 19 US CVs on the map.

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Once again, if the US loses 6 to 9 carriers ( especially early in the war) they will likely lose to automatic Japanese victory. As for the CV avaialble in 43, 2 of the essex listed as avaialble in 43 wont even appear if you dont lose at least 2 america carriers early enough for them to be rebuilt by 43. 550 days is closing on 2 years. 365 days plus 185 means you have to lose 2 carriers before 185 days have been used in 42 in order to get the historical 4 carriers in 43 alone.

In the game, 4 Essex arrive in 1943:

1 JAN Essex
15 JUL Bunker Hill
15 AUG Intrepid
15 NOV Franklin

They each arrive 3-6 months earlier than they did historically.

As the Allied Player, you take a beating of about 500 VP total (ship + aircraft) for every US CV sunk. So the question becomes, can you trade VPs for time?

[Ron Saueracker]

What gets me is that the feature was most likely included to alleviate the naming issue, period. GG may well have a position on US production, but this is simply his opinion. If they stuck with the original OOBs instead of trying to find a workaround like this one, we would not be treading the same water again.

Toggle it and be done with it.[>:]

[Admiral DadMan]

ROCK ONE AWAY!!

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

What gets me is that the feature was most likely included to alleviate the naming issue, period.

**WHOOSH (bird is missed)

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

GG may well have a position on US production, but this is simply his opinion.

**WHOOSH (bird is missed)


*****************************

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

If they stuck with the original OOBs instead of trying to find a workaround like this one, we would not be treading the same water again.

DAGGER TO HEART!! My sentiments exactly, Ron.

[RevRick]

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

If I am not understanding something please clarify it. But from what I know, there will still be 13 Essex-class ships in the game even if you lose every single one of the pre-war CVs.

With all due respect Onime No Kyo, the issue has never been about the number of Essex Hulls available but rather when they become available. Specifically 550 days after the sinking of original named CV. This means that for every CV sunk in the first 6 months of the war the player gets an "EARLY" Essex in 1943. For a potential total 9 Essex in 1943. This was well beyond US shipbuilding capacity in 1942.

A simple historic situation to demonstrate why the current system doesnt work. In the game if you lose the Lexington on the exact same historic date May 10 1942 you get 5 Essex CVs in 43 instead of the historic 4. If you happen to say lose the Yorktown on that same day as well, you get 6 Essex CVs in 43. Historically none of the Essex CVs that became operational in 43 were result of any of the 1942 loses.

Regards
[/quote]

With all due respect, DANFS does not agree with your statement. Both Lex and Yorktown were in action in 1943.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

ROCK ONE AWAY!!

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

What gets me is that the feature was most likely included to alleviate the naming issue, period.

**WHOOSH (bird is missed)

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

GG may well have a position on US production, but this is simply his opinion.

**WHOOSH (bird is missed)


*****************************

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

If they stuck with the original OOBs instead of trying to find a workaround like this one, we would not be treading the same water again.

DAGGER TO HEART!! My sentiments exactly, Ron.

[:D][:D][:D][:D]

[mdiehl]

This method best represents why the US did not build more- Economics + they had enough for the job.

Actually, they were built but not in time for action. Your latter point though is most germane. The US should get 16-19 Essex class CVs regardless of losses prior to 1946. If the US loses more than 4 CVs prior to 1943, the pace of availability of Essexes should increase, and the number of Essexes available before 1946 should increase.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Once again, if the US loses 6 to 9 carriers ( especially early in the war) they will likely lose to automatic Japanese victory. As for the CV avaialble in 43, 2 of the essex listed as avaialble in 43 wont even appear if you dont lose at least 2 america carriers early enough for them to be rebuilt by 43. 550 days is closing on 2 years. 365 days plus 185 means you have to lose 2 carriers before 185 days have been used in 42 in order to get the historical 4 carriers in 43 alone.

How does the US lose 9 CVs early? They only get 6. I havent look closely at the auto victory conditions because I dont believe in them but I find it hard to believe that loseing 6 CVs early results in an Japan auto victory and if it does then thats just plain wrong. Regardless you dont have to lose six you could lose 1, 2, 3 or 4 CVs early and the result would be 5, 6, 7 or 8 Essex in 43. Historically the US lost 4 CVs in 42 and only recieved 4 Essex in 43. Even a historical lost of a CV on May 10th (Lex) results in an extra Essex in 43 in the game.

Regardless, you are incorrect. The US does not lose out on any Essex CVs in 1943 because they have moved up the arrival dates of Franklin and Intrepid ( neither of which were operational until 1944) to 1943 to roughly coincide with the arrival dates of LexingtonII and YorktownII. So if you lose no CVs in 42 you still get the historic 4 Essex in 43 on roughly the same historic arrival dates.

I have no problem with adding these renamed CVs to the end of the arrival list just against inserting them 550 days from the original CV sinking.

[anarchyintheuk]

Can we just reschedule this argument for say . . . the same time in January? We just keep spinning wheels on this about every two months or so on something that isn't going to change. I'd much rather have a repeat of the zero v. f4f argument again.

[Hornblower]

For what its worth my opinion is this. The “Hulls” in question were already being built when there namesakes were lost. So historically they would have been available- no matter under what name- if there namesake was sunk or not. See the dates below.

Name Lost replacement laid down
Wasp 9/16/42 3/18/42
Lex 5/8/42 7/15/41
Hornet 10/26/42 8/3/42
York 6/6/42 12/1/41

So, as an example, instead of a new Wasp II you’d have had a Oriskany or whatever name you’d want to use, but the Hull of CV-18 would still have historically been there wither CV-7 had been sunk or not. The War Department had made the decision to put the Hull of cv-18 into commission and I find it hard to believe that early in the war, had CV-7 not sunk, that they would have suspended construction on cv-18, but continue to proceed with a build of say the Hancock, cv-19, that wasn’t laid down till 1/43. More so, if you consider that given the average building time of 18 months, CV-18 would have been 34% complete when CV-7 was lost. So, Bethlehem Steel Co. would stop building a ship 34% done, and then start a ship from scratch on 1/43?!?!?[&:] Maybe it’s just me, but that makes no rational sense whatsoever…

I understand the whole game coding issues regarding the names, and I also understand the need to keep the game playable. And that if the allied player can keep his pre-war carriers aflot, and still get there historic hulls, that the Japanese player will be hard put to just stay in the game. Well it should. If the allied player can keep his ships alive, then he shouldn’t be penalized, which he currently is. Some will make the argument that the USN wouldn’t build as many Fleet carriers if the pre-war carriers didn’t suffer the looses they did. It’s a valid point. If we want to incorporate that into the game then for as many of the pre-wars you save, remove the same number of the latest arriving Essex’s from the game. I’m sorry but I just don’t understand the logic in removing Fleet carriers early in the war, that were already on the slipways because I as the USN player, kept the Wasp from sinking.

If the Japanese player can to a degree control production, and thus influence what is and isn’t built – to a degree. Then at the very least the USN player should be able to receive the ships that were being built early on. Two of which were laid down before the war even started.. But, its not a make or break point for me, game is still after all, a game. Part of me is sorry to have contributed to this thread. [:(]