Taming Expansion of IJ Production

[Mike Scholl]

I always thought of "re-spawn" as just a bunch of garbage. Let's take things away from one side that they actually built..., and only give it back "x" number of months after they lose something else (instead of when it actually arrived). And for an excuse, we'll say we couldn't program a simple name substitution.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I always thought of "re-spawn" as just a bunch of garbage. Let's take things away from one side that they actually built..., and only give it back "x" number of months after they lose something else (instead of when it actually arrived). And for an excuse, we'll say we couldn't program a simple name substitution.

I agree, but until they give the Allies a reason to stand and fight early on I can see how respawn would be a passive incentive for that to happen. As it stands now if you took away respawn there is no incentive for the Allies to not run and hide...afterall they'll get their ships anyway....at least with respawn there is some incentive to go and use them instead of hiding.

IMO a better solution to get the Allies to stand and fight would be to base VP on a daily accumulation basis, so the longer you hold a place the more points you acquire towards your VP Total...but for now that is outside the scope....

And respawn is somewhat outside the topic of the thread.

[witpqs]

I follow your reasoning about respawn being to motivate the Allied player, but I just don't buy it as a theory. If it's just about victory conditions then the Allied player would still avoid battle unless the IJ player was getting enough VP's from base conquests and non-carrier battle Allied losses. The only reason that rings true is for play balance in the later game - if the Allied did well enough to, say, only lose one carrier then they would have 3 more carriers available with non-respawn than with respawn.

[Feinder]

I actually wish there was a SIMPLER production system. I think it's far more complicated than it needs to be. You can constrain, or ramp up production without making so complicated.

I mean, saying resources produce 1.25 supplies, and oil producing 3 fuel, and when you mix them together (but only if you have 2x of each) you can run heavy industry. But then it's only consumed at a rate of 1x, and then you build engines then you build airframes and then you recyle when your pool is more than 10x your replacement requirement. And 10 resources per manpower center which then if you have industry, supply and an amrment factory you can produce a squad. Geezus merry and joey. I'm a fairly bright person, but that's just an enima.

Any chance things will get SIMPLIER?

-F-

[mdiehl]

As it stands now if you took away respawn there is no incentive for the Allies to not run and hide...

Well, if the USN pilot EXPs were raised to where they should be, the strike coordination penalty eliminated, and the zero bonus would be eliminated, then there'd be a reason for the Allies to see a point in resisting. IRL the USN knew that they could take on the IJN ftf in a one for one fight and win or draw.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

What if it's just that the IJ player is over-aggressive and gets hurt without the Allied player losing CV's?

Anyway, I don't see how you can gain. Re-spawn only gives you those ships if you lost other ones. If you lose less than the respawn number, then you lose the ships that historically were delivered. I think the motivation for including respawn during the initial design was just for play balance.

Well, the Saipan class was designed and built to cover combat losses in the Independence class. It just wasn't accelerated like the early Essex class ships and the Independence class itself.

However, the decision to build them was made in the summer of 1941 and the decision to accelerate them in January 1941, before any American battle losses. See this site. Eleven Essex class carriers were ordered pre-war, two in December 1941, and ten in August 1942. Nine were ordered after that. No evidence of 'respawning'.

[herwin]

Nimitz knew the fleet was coming, but he didn't cut and run (although he sent the BBs to the rear). He used raiding and patrol operations to stretch the Japanese until late 1943 when he went on the offensive. Any USN player who retreats to California with his carriers should find the Japanese player much more solid and ready to fend off his attack. The attrition during 1942-43 was what made the Japanese vulnerable in early 1944.

[mdiehl]

Any USN player who retreats to California with his carriers should find the Japanese player much more solid and ready to fend off his attack. The attrition during 1942-43 was what made the Japanese vulnerable in early 1944.

I'm not sure how solid the IJN could have been. They had plenty of time to prepare interior positions and it didn't really help much at all. I do agree that the attrition really whittled away at the IJN. I think the point there is that the attrition ratio needs to be somewhere near historic levels, rather than the strange product that I've seen in WitP AARs. Unless one is going to REQUIRE the Japanese player to do something stupid, like send 4 CVs with inadequate recon to pull double-duty assaulting a heavily fortified atoll and at the same time hope that they can manage the USN if the latter happens to show up with a couple CVs, you *CAN'T* penalize the Allies for falling back in the face of overwhelming odds UNLESS the attrition hurts the Japanese as much as the Allies (which was the historic case, at least for aircraft combat).

[GaryChildress]

As I see it, a lot of incentive is there for the Allied player to try to do as much damage to KB as possible relatively early on. Sink a few Japanese carriers and if you lose some of your own, you get them back, the Japanese don't. Again, for some Allied players who miraculously get through most of the war without losing any carriers it IS a shot in the foot. But for others who play more aggressively early on, putting their carriers at risk in order to maybe get a lucky strike at KB, then respawn is not NECESSARILY a bad thing. Granted a lot of players know better than to throw their carriers at KB TOO EARLY on. However, historically the US carriers sailed into harms way facing a superior enemy on many occasions and lost 4 CVs early on in the war because of it. All I'm saying is that CV and CA respawn are not NECESSARILY bad things for the Allies as they are often made out to be. There can be good and bad points to it for Allies.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

What if it's just that the IJ player is over-aggressive and gets hurt without the Allied player losing CV's?

Anyway, I don't see how you can gain. Re-spawn only gives you those ships if you lost other ones. If you lose less than the respawn number, then you lose the ships that historically were delivered. I think the motivation for including respawn during the initial design was just for play balance.

[mdiehl]

But for others who play more aggressively early on, putting their carriers at risk in order to maybe get a lucky strike at KB

It should not require a lucky strike. Just an airstrike. All evidence from the actual wars shows that the USN was as capable of hurting the IJN in carrier combat as the IJN was of hurting the USN. Indeed, since USN carriers sank (in 1942) 6 Japanese carriers, to KB sinking ONE (Hornet), the evidence suggests that the USN was substantially better at that sort of thing, in carrier air combat.

[herwin]

Midway happened the way it did because of some weaknesses of the Japanese tactics, but Nimitz fought at Midway because he had a reasonable expectation of at least a draw. Our fleet had the advantage of being behind a scouting base and so being able to attack effectively first. I've seen the same tactic used against Red in North Atlantic scenarios (in my professional life, not gamer) with similar outcomes.

[mdiehl]

Midway happened the way it did because of some weaknesses of the Japanese tactics, but Nimitz fought at Midway because he had a reasonable expectation of at least a draw.

Nimitz orderd Spruance to fight at Midway because Nimitz had a reasonable expectation of a win. A "draw" was his "reasonable bottom line."

Our fleet had the advantage of being behind a scouting base and so being able to attack effectively first.

True, but the Yorktown and Lexington had no such advantage at Coral Sea and lost the Lex to a damage control error while sinking a Japanese CV, badly damaging Shokaku, and gutting Zuikaku's air complement for relatively minor USN aircrew losses. If "attrition" is supposed to be attractive to the Allied player in WitP, then the attrition should be favorable to the Allied player (at least by historical standards).

I've seen the same tactic used against Red in North Atlantic scenarios (in my professional life, not gamer) with similar outcomes

And it's very undesrtandable. In many ways, the IJN problem at Midway was the "rope-a-dope" effect.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

But for others who play more aggressively early on, putting their carriers at risk in order to maybe get a lucky strike at KB

It should not require a lucky strike. Just an airstrike. All evidence from the actual wars shows that the USN was as capable of hurting the IJN in carrier combat as the IJN was of hurting the USN. Indeed, since USN carriers sank (in 1942) 6 Japanese carriers, to KB sinking ONE (Hornet), the evidence suggests that the USN was substantially better at that sort of thing, in carrier air combat.

That's another matter altogether. I didn't say that it should or should not be a condition of "luck". I'm merely pointing out that CV respawn is not necessarily a shot in the foot for Allies.

[mdiehl]

I'm merely pointing out that CV respawn is not necessarily a shot in the foot for Allies.

Well, I think that Ron's point is that objectively it is a shot in the foot, because unless the USN does "historically or worse" in early war combat, then the USN does not get reinforcements that it historically received. Moreover, if the IJN player doesn't play the way the real IJN played it, or if the attrition model in the early going substantially favors the Japanese (which in real life was not the case), then there is no reason to demand that the Allied player be "aggressive" in resisting. In 1942 the real USN waited for the IJN to overextend and then made the IJN pay heavily for it. WitP as it stands lacks any substantial short-term risk to Japanese overextension. If it did model that risk, you wouldn't regularly see the Japanese player seizing New Caledonia, Port Moresby, Johnston Isl, or points in Northern Australia, Ceylon, or India. Because when they tried it they'd run a very high risk of being overtasked trying to deal with LBA and then losing most of KB to enemy carrier strikes.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I'm merely pointing out that CV respawn is not necessarily a shot in the foot for Allies.

Well, I think that Ron's point is that objectively it is a shot in the foot, because unless the USN does "historically or worse" in early war combat, then the USN does not get reinforcements that it historically received. Moreover, if the IJN player doesn't play the way the real IJN played it, or if the attrition model in the early going substantially favors the Japanese (which in real life was not the case), then there is no reason to demand that the Allied player be "aggressive" in resisting. In 1942 the real USN waited for the IJN to overextend and then made the IJN pay heavily for it. WitP as it stands lacks any substantial short-term risk to Japanese overextension. If it did, you wouldn't regularly see the Japanese player seizing New Caledonia, Port Moresby, Johnston Isl, or points in Northern Australia, Ceylon, or India. Because when they tried it they'd run a very high risk of being overtasked trying to deal with LBA and then losing most of KB to enemy carrier strikes.

What do you mean by "objectively" here? It's a shot in the foot in some circumstances and not others. You could look at it in a way that the US must only do historically or worse to benefit or you could look at it that the US is not really allowed to do much worse because if they completely screw up and lose all their carriers early, they get them back. You can word it one way or the other. You still come out with the fact that under some circumstances it hurts the Allies and under others it benefits them. It looks to me like it behooves the Allied player to play more aggressively if he is going to get his carriers back.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
That's another matter altogether. I didn't say that it should or should not be a condition of "luck". I'm merely pointing out that CV respawn is not necessarily a shot in the foot for Allies.

Wrong. No matter what the allies do, they lose almost all of their 1943 CV’s. If they get everything sunk very early in 42 (Jan-Mar), the CV’s don’t show up till the end of 43 or in early 44.

Respawns take about 500-600 days give or take and that is simply ludicrous. As I posted in post 672 in the naval thread, here’s the missing hulls and their historical arrival dates:

CV-10 Yorktown laid down 1 Dec 41, commissioned Apr 1943
CV-12 Hornet laid down 3 Aug 42, commissioned Nov 1943
CV-16 Lexington laid down 15 Jul 41, commissioned Feb 1943
CV-18 Wasp laid down 18 Mar 42, commissioned Nov 1943

As you can see the allies should get 2 Essex class CV’s in earl 43, but no matter what they do they lose that early power. Most early CV battles in game take place in late 42 after the July upgrades, so in most games the allies get only one CV in 1943 (the Essex).

That gives Japan an extra year of carrier dominance they shouldn’t have in a realistic simulation. It was done for balance reasons pure and simple and no matter what happens the allies get shot in the foot.

Jim

[herwin]

Respawn has no basis in history.

[GaryChildress]

Wrong. No matter what the allies do, they lose almost all of their 1943 CV’s. If they get everything sunk very early in 42 (Jan-Mar), the CV’s don’t show up till the end of 43 or in early 44.

Respawns take about 500-600 days give or take and that is simply ludicrous. As I posted in post 672 in the naval thread, here’s the missing hulls and their historical arrival dates:

CV-10 Yorktown laid down 1 Dec 41, commissioned Apr 1943
CV-12 Hornet laid down 3 Aug 42, commissioned Nov 1943
CV-16 Lexington laid down 15 Jul 41, commissioned Feb 1943
CV-18 Wasp laid down 18 Mar 42, commissioned Nov 1943

As you can see the allies should get 2 Essex class CV’s in earl 43, but no matter what they do they lose that early power. Most early CV battles in game take place in late 42 after the July upgrades, so in most games the allies get only one CV in 1943 (the Essex).

That gives Japan an extra year of carrier dominance they shouldn’t have in a realistic simulation. It was done for balance reasons pure and simple and no matter what happens the allies get shot in the foot.

Jim

Hmmm. Looks like you may be right. Looks like I was wrong. I change my position in that case. It looks like the Allies do objectively suffer from "respawn". [:o]

[okami]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
That's another matter altogether. I didn't say that it should or should not be a condition of "luck". I'm merely pointing out that CV respawn is not necessarily a shot in the foot for Allies.

Wrong. No matter what the allies do, they lose almost all of their 1943 CV’s. If they get everything sunk very early in 42 (Jan-Mar), the CV’s don’t show up till the end of 43 or in early 44.

Respawns take about 500-600 days give or take and that is simply ludicrous. As I posted in post 672 in the naval thread, here’s the missing hulls and their historical arrival dates:

CV-10 Yorktown laid down 1 Dec 41, commissioned Apr 1943
CV-12 Hornet laid down 3 Aug 42, commissioned Nov 1943
CV-16 Lexington laid down 15 Jul 41, commissioned Feb 1943
CV-18 Wasp laid down 18 Mar 42, commissioned Nov 1943

As you can see the allies should get 2 Essex class CV’s in earl 43, but no matter what they do they lose that early power. Most early CV battles in game take place in late 42 after the July upgrades, so in most games the allies get only one CV in 1943 (the Essex).

That gives Japan an extra year of carrier dominance they shouldn’t have in a realistic simulation. It was done for balance reasons pure and simple and no matter what happens the allies get shot in the foot.

Jim

Before you get irritated by what I am about to say.... I hate respawn and I only play the Japanese. Ok qualifiers out of the way. There is one advantage to respawn and I find it a humourous one. With respawn there is less ships for the Japanese to sink at anyone time and thus less VP's to gain.

[mdiehl]

There is one advantage to respawn and I find it a humourous one. With respawn there is less ships for the Japanese to sink at anyone time and thus less VP's to gain.

Stated another way, the only early war limiting factor in IJN vps is the number of allied ships in the game available to run down and sink. That sort of strategic "reality" has absolutely no resemblance to the actual war. And people complain because the Allied player often runs and hides? Jeesh!