Matrix Games Forums

Don't know if there are any "what if" CVs on the IJN OB, but if there are, they should either be removed

There are a few ships available in the queue which were not 100% completed, but I believe that every warship present in the queue was launched IRL.

(did not mean to edit Mambas post just quote it)

Hi, No they don't they just get CV with different names. If you don't lose the orginal you don't get an Essex replacement. But you get 19 fleet carriers.
This rule produces strange results not all of them good for Japan. personally I think it is better for japan to damage CV then it is to sink them before a certain date. (In 1944 it is OK to sink CV)

The respawn rule is just another part of game that people can latch onto to attack the game. It is there because GG liked it and it's his game. But
1. While no CV was placed into production to replace a lost CV CV already in production did have their names changed. No one can predict if a specific ship will ever be sunk so the options were. Have all ships with orginal names and stop production of CV in excess of 19 total on map at any one time. Or have a new Essex take the name of any CV lost.

Some of the late war CV might have been halted if early war CV had not been lost. It is not a matter of number of CV but of CV airgroups.



Japan gets no benifit from being able to alter ship production.
All allied ships are built under accellerated programs and the Allies never have to worry about ship building points. The Japanese do nothave enough points to build everything.

Japanese aircraft production is most likely abused to no benifit. It is not (and never was) a question of building aircraft. The Japanese player only has room for x number of aircraft. Having 35,000 George in pool and room for 200 on map means a production schedule that provides 50 per month would make more sense then building aircraft that cannot be used. And then he still has to worry about the pilot quality.

The Allied player does not have to worry at all about aircraft or ship production. To me this is a great benifit to him. The destruction of the Japanese economy is a war aim and trying to protect it is the reason Japan fights the war. It's not a benifit to him it's his reason for existence. (But certain types of person like to tinker with it so there it is for him to tinker with)

Since the game after you boil everything not vital away is all about air power and air control and the Allies have the aircraft with the heaviest loads I would say it favors the Allied player. (as did the war)

Mogami, when you say 19 fleet carriers for USN I think you must be counting CVL's as well.

ORIGINAL: treespider
Don't know if there are any "what if" CVs on the IJN OB, but if there are, they should either be removed, or the USN "what if" CVs (like the Midway or whatever) should be re-added. Cancelled because the war was over is meaningless in WitP, since it goes until 1946.

Problem is that per Jane's some US CV's are cancelled in March 1945 well before the war was over.

These were cancelled because it was obvious they wouldn't be completed before the war was over (1947)
There were a number of ships that were still being build yet wouldn't be (and weren't) finished until 1946.

ORIGINAL: treespider

I could be wrong, but I think Treespider is trying to differentiate the "engine" being biased from the "game" being biased. In other words ... it might be ideal to have an "engine" ( the code ) be unbaised while the "scenarios" ( the games ) might be probably unbalanced ( to reflect history ).

Yes. In an ideal situation the engine/code would be be unbiased while the scenarios were filled out with whatever forces were available to the opposing sides. In my early post I was essentially asking why some people perceive a bias with the current code.

To me an engine is fair and balanced if given identical forces the outcome is decided 50-50. Now you can bias the outcome by introducing modifers..ie the Zero Bonus, Morale, Experience etc.

So is WitP engine biased or are the modifiers introduced to that engine biased?

It should be easy to find out. But time consuming to check/test. Apart from anything you know is slanted (ASW, planes in the Zero slot etc.) Just copy some of the Japanese weapons, airframes, ships and aircraft to allied slots and vice versa. Does a Japanese Wildcat firing it's 6 .50 cals do better against US Zeroes with 'US' Japanese low velocity cannons? How about US Cruisers with Long Lances and high night fighting experience crews vs Japanese all gun Cruisers?

Rinse and repeat until you have a suitable sample size and compare to the traditional (US) Wildcat v (IJN) Zero etc tests you also ran.

Of course you could just pit identically stat planes and ships against one another. You still need to do repeated tests and with both sides as the attacker. But how much fun would that be [:)]

I am not volunteering by the way [:D]

These were cancelled because it was obvious they wouldn't be completed before the war was over (1947)
There were a number of ships that were still being build yet wouldn't be (and weren't) finished until 1946.

Two of the Midway Class were commissioned in the weeks following the surrender:
USS MIDWAY: 10 Sept 45
USS FRANKLIN D ROOSEVELT: 27 Oct 45

Since we are discussing the "respawn" rule, I will add my general comments. I have always been in favour of this rule, and I still am. In my mind it is more accurate to have the rule than to not have it. Why? Because I see it as representing how the USA would have most likely, at least in my opinion, responded to CV losses - the more they lose, the more likely it would be that they would have accelerated CV production to compensate. The fewer they lose, the more likely they might slow down new CV construction and divert resources to other areas.

I don't see the rule as particularly favouring one side or the other. What it does do is "normalise" the Allied player to an extent, meaning that it gives the Allied player more resources if they are doing badly (i.e. losing CVs), or less resources if they are doing particularly well (i.e. not losing CVs).

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Since we are discussing the "respawn" rule, I will add my general comments. I have always been in favour of this rule, and I still am. In my mind it is more accurate to have the rule than to not have it. Why? Because I see it as representing how the USA would have most likely, at least in my opinion, responded to CV losses - the more they lose, the more likely it would be that they would have accelerated CV production to compensate. The fewer they lose, the more likely they might slow down new CV construction and divert resources to other areas.

Strange, the impression that I have from what history I've read and from what little my grandfathers said (both worked as aircraft engineers, one at Boeing, one at Douglass, during the war), that wasn't really an option. It was BUILD! BUILD! BUILD! at full throttle. You always want more as a commander, regardless of how much you already have.

I don't see the rule as particularly favouring one side or the other. What it does do is "normalise" the Allied player to an extent, meaning that it gives the Allied player more resources if they are doing badly (i.e. losing CVs), or less resources if they are doing particularly well (i.e. not losing CVs).

That "normalizing" is a bias. It may vary from game to game which side it favors, but it does favor one side or the other.

ORIGINAL: dtravel
Strange, the impression that I have from what history I've read and from what little my grandfathers said (both worked as aircraft engineers, one at Boeing, one at Douglass, during the war), that wasn't really an option. It was BUILD! BUILD! BUILD! at full throttle. You always want more as a commander, regardless of how much you already have.

Of course the builders build as fast as they can. But I am talking about strategic direction. At the highest levels, the planners would direct the war economy in directions they think are most critical. They did not have rigid, uncahgeable schedules that could not be modified no matter what, with all the economic planners merely spectators watching it all unfold before them. I believe that the economic planners were capable of increasing priorities in areas where they were most needed.

That "normalizing" is a bias. It may vary from game to game which side it favors, but it does favor one side or the other.

My comment was that it does not specifically favour one side or the other. Nor do I see it as a bias if it a more accurate reflection of how the US economy would respond to varying levels of ship losses.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Since we are discussing the "respawn" rule, I will add my general comments. I have always been in favour of this rule, and I still am. In my mind it is more accurate to have the rule than to not have it. Why? Because I see it as representing how the USA would have most likely, at least in my opinion, responded to CV losses - the more they lose, the more likely it would be that they would have accelerated CV production to compensate. The fewer they lose, the more likely they might slow down new CV construction and divert resources to other areas.

I don't see the rule as particularly favouring one side or the other. What it does do is "normalise" the Allied player to an extent, meaning that it gives the Allied player more resources if they are doing badly (i.e. losing CVs), or less resources if they are doing particularly well (i.e. not losing CVs).

"Because I see it as representing how the USA would have most likely, at least in my opinion, responded to CV losses"

What, the US wouldscrap CVs almost built because the old ones were still afloat? Why would they rebuild old BBs then?

To me the respawn rule is either a total miscalculation of how to get around the renaming issue (why I don't know as PacWar fans explained their desires and rid PacWar of it I believe) or a conscious decision to "balance" the game. Either way it is grossly in error and robs the Allies of a number of ships (from CV to the smallest DE) which added together are the equal of Kido Butai in fighting power. Pretty huge miscue by any measure. Hopefully something can be done about it now.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
What, the US wouldscrap CVs almost built because the old ones were still afloat?

I don't know if they would scrap CVs that were almost built. But ones that might be planned but not yet started might be delayed or cancelled, and ones under construction might be delayed or even scrapped. As Treespider posted above all this did happen in real life, and it was presumably in response to need, so having it occur in the game is not a stretch in any way.

Why would they rebuild old BBs then?

Presumably because they thought they needed the gunpower, and this was the cheapest way to get it. Why did the USS Wisconsin take longer to get into commision (from start of construction) than the Iowa? Why was USS Montana never built? Part of the reason was changing priorities.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Since we are discussing the "respawn" rule, I will add my general comments. I have always been in favour of this rule, and I still am. In my mind it is more accurate to have the rule than to not have it. Why? Because I see it as representing how the USA would have most likely, at least in my opinion, responded to CV losses - the more they lose, the more likely it would be that they would have accelerated CV production to compensate. The fewer they lose, the more likely they might slow down new CV construction and divert resources to other areas.

I don't see the rule as particularly favouring one side or the other. What it does do is "normalise" the Allied player to an extent, meaning that it gives the Allied player more resources if they are doing badly (i.e. losing CVs), or less resources if they are doing particularly well (i.e. not losing CVs).

I like it also and you could rationalize it as Andrew or I like because it also gives a little of the play balance aspect by not giving the allies overwhelming CV's at end if they do not lose any. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
What, the US wouldscrap CVs almost built because the old ones were still afloat?

I don't know if they would scrap CVs that were almost built. But ones that might be planned but not yet started might be delayed or cancelled, and ones under construction might be delayed or even scrapped. As Treespider posted above all this did happen in real life, and it was presumably in response to need, so having it occur in the game is not a stretch in any way.

Why would they rebuild old BBs then?

Presumably because they thought they needed the gunpower, and this was the cheapest way to get it. Why did the USS Wisconsin take longer to get into commision (from start of construction) than the Iowa? Why was USS Montana never built? Part of the reason was changing priorities.

From the US Navy at War, p 146 A compilation of reports to the Secretary of the Navy

This section is from the Second Report covering combat operations 1 march 1944 to 1 march 1945 by Fleet Admiral Ernest J King

Chapter V - Fighting Strength

"The shipbuilding program is under constant review. the effect of building too many vessels of any particular type would be as serious as building too few, since the construction of unnecessary craft would involve waste of manpower and critical materials urgently needed for other parts of the war effort. It is not easy to keep the shipbuilding program in balance. It has been necessary to cut back certain programs and to expand others with little warning."

I find it difficult to agree with the proposal that the US would have either stopped construction on or diverted to the Atlantic a total of 5 Essex class CV's.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I find it difficult to agree with the proposal that the US would have either stopped construction on or diverted to the Atlantic a total of 5 Essex class CV's.

Look at Jane's p 267...

"Note - First 11 of class ordered 1940. Inclusive cost officially... ,,,,Two ships under construction at New York Navy Yard (Reprisal) and Newport News (Iwo Jima ex-Crown Point) were cancelled in August 1945, and six others in March, 1945."


and from....

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usns ... cv14cl.htm

"In addition to these thirteen carriers, Oriskany (CV-34), built at the New York Navy Yard, was completed in 1950 to the much modified SCB-27A design; Reprisal (CV-35), laid down in July 1944 at the New York Navy Yard and launched in 1945, was scrapped incomplete after tests; and Iwo Jima (CV-46) was laid down at Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company in January 1945 but cancelled in August 1945 and broken up on the shipways. The six Fiscal Year 1945 ships, none of which received names, were assigned to Bethlehem Steel Company (CV-50), New York Navy Yard (CVs 51 & 52), Philadelphia Navy Yard (CV-53) and Norfolk Navy Yard (CVs 54 and 55). Their construction was cancelled in March 1945."

treespider,

That was beginning in March 1945, which is a far cry from the actual hulls given up by the respawn (depending on # of CV's lost and timing). The hulls you are citing would have been delivered when? 1946, 1947? Late 1945 at the earliest?

And - if CV losses in 1944 or 1945 had been severe then certainly partially completed hulls would have been reactivated or not cancelled to begin with. Those are hulls in addition to the ones lost to respawn (too late to matter to the game though, so that is an observation rather than a crticism).

ORIGINAL: witpqs

treespider,

That was beginning in March 1945, which is a far cry from the actual hulls given up by the respawn (depending on # of CV's lost and timing). The hulls you are citing would have been delivered when? 1946, 1947? Late 1945 at the earliest?

And - if CV losses in 1944 or 1945 had been severe then certainly partially completed hulls would have been reactivated or not cancelled to begin with. Those are hulls in addition to the ones lost to respawn (too late to matter to the game though, so that is an observation rather than a crticism).

I'm not defending the respawn rule...as I suggested in an earlier post IMO perhaps a better incarnation of it would have later war hulls be subject to the "respawning".

I am merely pointing out historical references to show that resources were constantly being shifted as to need.

The contention was that if the US had not lost as many CV's early that perhaps resources would have been directed elsewhere. You stated that you found it hard to believe that five Essex class carriers would have been cancelled. In fact six Essex class carriers were cancelled even with those losses in March of 1945.

One thing that should not be overlooked is the fact that although the US was a prodigous producer during the war by 1945 even the US was suffering strains. In the same report prepared by King he points out a growing concern over shipyard employee shortages. In Jan 1944 shipyards employed 970,000 people one year later that number had shrunk to 861,000.

ORIGINAL: treespider

I am merely pointing out historical references to show that resources were constantly being shifted as to need.

I agree that resources were actively managed.

The contention was that if the US had not lost as many CV's early that perhaps resources would have been directed elsewhere. You stated that you found it hard to believe that five Essex class carriers would have been cancelled. In fact six Essex class carriers were cancelled even with those losses in March of 1945.

I understand - I meant five of the Essex class carriers that actually went to the Pacific.

A late war type respawn would almost certainly be a better alternative than the current version.

One problem with any respawn is that in reality it would have also depended on Japanese carrier losses, and on other aspects of the strategic situation. Suppose the US did not lose those 5 fleet carriers. Would maybe 1, 2, or even 3 of those Essex CV's have gone to the Atlantic? Not if the Japanese also had lost no fleet carriers. Those Essex's would've piled into the Pacific to provide superiority in CV's. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Is the WitP model that biased towards one side? Is there routine in the code that identifies an item as Japanese or Allied and gives a bonus to one side or the other? The Japanese do receive the Zero bonus but are there other unseen coded features that give the Japanese or Allies benefits? Do the allies receive a benefit in search routines to account for intelligence?

To begin at the beginning, the answer is no. WITP is equally biased for and against both sides, in two different senses:

1) Some things structurally favor both sides (supply for example). To the extent Japan benefits from supply bonus mechanics (say ships that have way too much range on way too little fuel), the same thing applies to the Allies.

2) Some specific advantages are coded in for each side. Mike Wood disclosed not long ago how the Allies are more likely to rescue a pilot than the Japanese are. Probably more of these sort of rule differences benefit the Allies, but also probably the ones that benefit the Japanese are more significant.

As for the Zero Bonus, I think it is grossly understated: "The Oscar was almost as much a technical surprise as the Zero was" Francillon. The Turning In Maneuver was adopted by the JAAF and UNTIL it was understood, the Allies were at a disadvantage EVEN WHEN they had better performance. The Zero Bonus is correctly designed in that it does not last forever - but while it lasts - and in the context of the numbers and quality of Allied planes in the forward areas - it probably matters a great deal more than, say, better rescue for Allied pilots does. So while many things, particularly logistic and efficiency and technical things, benefit the Allies, there is a time imbalance: Japanese advantages occur early and Allied advantages occur later. This seems historically accurate and nicely done IMHO.

hat was beginning in March 1945, which is a far cry from the actual hulls given up by the respawn (depending on # of CV's lost and timing). The hulls you are citing would have been delivered when? 1946, 1947? Late 1945 at the earliest?

The nominal building time for an Essex was 21 months
for an Independence 20 months
for a Midway 23 months