Page 3 of 6
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 4:54 am
by marky
hmmmm
interesting
tho according to one of my sources Intrepid joined PacFlt in August
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 5:30 am
by Ron Saueracker
USN ships within time frame of game renamed for sunken namesakes (not included in game)
Subs:
Argonaut II/ SS 475/ Tench Class/ Jan 45/ ex-?
Amberjack II/ SS 522/ Tench Class/ Mar 46/ ex-?
Perch II/ SS 313/ Balao Class/ Jan 44/ ex-?
Runner II/ SS 476/ Tench Class/ Feb 45/ ex-?
Sealion II/ SS 315/ Balao Class/ Mar 44/ ex-?
Shark II/ SS 314/ Balao Class/ Feb 44/ (lost 24/10/44)/ ex-?
(could use dozens of names from cancelled subs)
Carriers:
Yorktown II/ CV 10/ Essex Class/ Apr 43/ ex- Bon Home Richard
Hornet II/ CV 12/ Essex Class/ Dec 43/ ex- Kearsarge
Lexington/ CV16/ Essex Class/ Feb 43/ ex-Cabot
Wasp/ CV 18/ Essex Class/ Dec 43/ ex-Oriskany
conflicts:
Bon Homme Richard/ CV 31/ Essex Class/ Dec 44/ ex-? (substitute cancelled Reprisal)
Kearsarge/ CV 33/ Essex Class/ Mar46/ ex-? (substitute cancelled Iwo Jima)
Cabot/ CVL 28/ Independence Class/ Aug 43/ ex- Wilmington
work in progress...[:-]
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 5:46 am
by neuromancer
You do know that renaming shiips is bad luck don't you?
[:-]
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 6:25 am
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: neuromancer
You do know that renaming shiips is bad luck don't you?
[:-]
I know that but the USN just loved to freak out their superstitious sailors. And if they had not frigged around and got all sentimental and renamed all their ships, I could have used this effort to be an anal freak on some other point.[:D]
Anyway, I was informed that this is set in stone so not much point in pursuing it further.
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 7:25 am
by Svar
OK. I haven't posted in months but this thread has me confused. All my sources indicate that 24 Essex class carriers were built. There were 6 keels laid in 1941, 7 keels laid in 1942, 3 keels laid in 1943, and 8 keels laid in 1944. CV 35 Reprisal also had its keel laid but it was never finished. That takes care of the shipyard capacity question. In 1942 three of these hulls were launched, in 1943 5 hulls were launched, in 1944 9 hulls were launched and in 1945 7 hulls were launched. In 1942 one ship was commisioned, in 1943 six ships were commisioned, in 1944 six ships were commisioned, in 1945 6 ships were commisioned, in 1946 four ships were commisioned, and finally in 1950 CV 34 was finally commisioned. I don't care what you call these ships but the fact remains that by the end of 1945 nineteen Essex class carriers were commisioned. The question is when will these ships become available in the game. We know what history was but given the fortunes of war if the game goes into 1946 all 19 of these ships should have been entered into the fleet. As I now understand it I only get the last 6 if I lose 6 is that correct?
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 8:22 am
by afspret
[&:]Maybe I missed seeing this somewhere, 'cause I kinda got confused reading some of these posts, but what happens if you lose the Saratoga instead of Lexington or the Enterprise instead of Hornet, will WitP re-assign those names to new builds?
Also, what if you're a shrewd (conservative or just plain lucky) player and don't manage lose any of the pre-war CVs, will the new ships maintain their original names when launched?
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 10:57 am
by Rendova
I have got to say that this is the single most confusing thread I have read here, which is no small feat mine you...... I guess we are going to have to wait till it gets released for a real answer. But can someone just answer this what is the MINIMUM number of Essex and Maximum number of Essex the the US will get? No Names no rules, of why, just and Min/Max number...
Thank You [&o]
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 11:39 am
by Mr.Frag
Lets at least deal with the facts when discussing this:
Hull No Ship Name Class Laid Down Commissioned Build Time Shipyard
CV 9 ESSEX CV 9 4/28/1941 12/31/1942 1.68 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (in game)
CV 10 YORKTOWN CV 9 12/1/1941 1/21/1943 1.14 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (spawned)
CV 11 INTREPID CV 9 12/1/1941 8/16/1943 1.71 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (in game)
CV 12 HORNET CV 9 8/3/1942 11/29/1943 1.32 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (spawned)
CV 13 FRANKLIN CV 9 12/7/1942 1/31/1944 1.15 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (in game)
CV 14 TICONDEROGA CV 9 2/1/1943 5/8/1944 1.26 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (in game)
CV 15 RANDOLPH CV 9 5/10/1943 10/9/1944 1.42 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (in game)
CV 16 LEXINGTON CV 9 7/15/1941 2/17/1943 1.59 yrs Bethlehem Steel Corp, Quincy MA (spawned)
CV 17 BUNKER HILL CV 9 9/15/1941 5/24/1943 1.69 yrs Bethlehem Steel Corp, Quincy MA (in game)
CV 18 WASP CV 9 3/18/1942 11/24/1943 1.69 yrs Bethlehem Steel Corp, Quincy MA (spawned)
CV 19 HANCOCK CV 9 1/26/1943 4/15/1944 1.22 yrs Bethlehem Steel Corp, Quincy MA (in game)
CV 20 BENNINGTON CV 9 12/15/1942 8/6/1944 1.64 yrs New York Naval Shipyard, Brooklyn NY (in game)
CV 21 BOXER CV 9 9/13/1943 4/16/1945 1.59 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (in game)
CV 31 BON HOMME RICHARD CV 9 2/1/1943 11/26/1944 1.82 yrs New York Naval Shipyard, Brooklyn NY (in game)
CV 32 LEYTE CV 9 2/21/1944 4/11/1946 2.14 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (not in game)
CV 33 KEARSARGE CV 9 3/1/1943 3/2/1946 3.00 yrs New York Naval Shipyard, Brooklyn NY (not in game)
CV 34 ORISKANY CV 9 5/1/1944 9/25/1950 6.40 yrs New York Naval Shipyard, Brooklyn NY (not in game)
CV 36 ANTIETAM CV 9 3/15/1943 1/28/1945 1.88 yrs Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia PA (in game)
CV 37 PRINCETON CV 9 9/14/1943 11/18/1945 2.18 yrs Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia PA (not in game)
CV 38 SHANGRI-LA CV 9 1/15/1943 9/15/1944 1.67 yrs Norfolk Navy Yard, Portsmouth VA (in game)
CV 39 LAKE CHAMPLAIN CV 9 3/15/1943 6/3/1945 2.22 yrs Norfolk Navy Yard, Portsmouth VA (in game)
CV 40 TARAWA CV 9 3/1/1944 12/8/1945 1.77 yrs Norfolk Navy Yard, Portsmouth VA (not in game)
CV 45 VALLEY FORGE CV 9 9/7/1944 11/3/1946 2.15 yrs Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia PA (not in game)
CV 47 PHILIPPINE SEA CV 9 8/19/1944 5/11/1946 1.72 yrs Bethlehem Steel Corp, Quincy MA (not in game)
Game dates:
Essex 01/15/43
Bunker Hill 07/15/43
Intrepid 08/15/43
Franklin 11/15/43
Ticonderoga 05/15/44
Bennington 05/15/44
Hancock 07/15/44
Randolph 08/15/44
Shangri-La 09/15/44
Bon Homme Richard 10/15/44
Antietam 11/15/44
Lake Champlain 02/15/45
Boxer 05/15/45
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 11:59 am
by Rendova
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Lets at least deal with the facts when discussing this:
Hull No Ship Name Class Laid Down Commissioned Build Time Shipyard
CV 9 ESSEX CV 9 4/28/1941 12/31/1942 1.68 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (in game)
CV 10 YORKTOWN CV 9 12/1/1941 1/21/1943 1.14 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (spawned)
CV 11 INTREPID CV 9 12/1/1941 8/16/1943 1.71 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (in game)
CV 12 HORNET CV 9 8/3/1942 11/29/1943 1.32 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (spawned)
CV 13 FRANKLIN CV 9 12/7/1942 1/31/1944 1.15 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (in game)
CV 14 TICONDEROGA CV 9 2/1/1943 5/8/1944 1.26 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (in game)
CV 15 RANDOLPH CV 9 5/10/1943 10/9/1944 1.42 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (in game)
CV 16 LEXINGTON CV 9 7/15/1941 2/17/1943 1.59 yrs Bethlehem Steel Corp, Quincy MA (spawned)
CV 17 BUNKER HILL CV 9 9/15/1941 5/24/1943 1.69 yrs Bethlehem Steel Corp, Quincy MA (in game)
CV 18 WASP CV 9 3/18/1942 11/24/1943 1.69 yrs Bethlehem Steel Corp, Quincy MA (spawned)
CV 19 HANCOCK CV 9 1/26/1943 4/15/1944 1.22 yrs Bethlehem Steel Corp, Quincy MA (in game)
CV 20 BENNINGTON CV 9 12/15/1942 8/6/1944 1.64 yrs New York Naval Shipyard, Brooklyn NY (in game)
CV 21 BOXER CV 9 9/13/1943 4/16/1945 1.59 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (in game)
CV 31 BON HOMME RICHARD CV 9 2/1/1943 11/26/1944 1.82 yrs New York Naval Shipyard, Brooklyn NY (in game)
CV 32 LEYTE CV 9 2/21/1944 4/11/1946 2.14 yrs Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co, Newport News VA (not in game)
CV 33 KEARSARGE CV 9 3/1/1943 3/2/1946 3.00 yrs New York Naval Shipyard, Brooklyn NY (not in game)
CV 34 ORISKANY CV 9 5/1/1944 9/25/1950 6.40 yrs New York Naval Shipyard, Brooklyn NY (not in game)
CV 36 ANTIETAM CV 9 3/15/1943 1/28/1945 1.88 yrs Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia PA (in game)
CV 37 PRINCETON CV 9 9/14/1943 11/18/1945 2.18 yrs Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia PA (not in game)
CV 38 SHANGRI-LA CV 9 1/15/1943 9/15/1944 1.67 yrs Norfolk Navy Yard, Portsmouth VA (in game)
CV 39 LAKE CHAMPLAIN CV 9 3/15/1943 6/3/1945 2.22 yrs Norfolk Navy Yard, Portsmouth VA (in game)
CV 40 TARAWA CV 9 3/1/1944 12/8/1945 1.77 yrs Norfolk Navy Yard, Portsmouth VA (not in game)
CV 45 VALLEY FORGE CV 9 9/7/1944 11/3/1946 2.15 yrs Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia PA (not in game)
CV 47 PHILIPPINE SEA CV 9 8/19/1944 5/11/1946 1.72 yrs Bethlehem Steel Corp, Quincy MA (not in game)
Game dates:
Essex 01/15/43
Bunker Hill 07/15/43
Intrepid 08/15/43
Franklin 11/15/43
Ticonderoga 05/15/44
Bennington 05/15/44
Hancock 07/15/44
Randolph 08/15/44
Shangri-La 09/15/44
Bon Homme Richard 10/15/44
Antietam 11/15/44
Lake Champlain 02/15/45
Boxer 05/15/45
Ok thanks at least we now know.....
So why on earth is CV-10 spawned? I was and would have been built even if Yorktown hadn't sunk at Midway. Same goes for the others.
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 12:11 pm
by Mr.Frag
There are no CV's missing, there is a potential accelleration of CV production to make up for early CV losses.
Had the USA not lost 4 CV's, they would not have accellerated production of 4 CV's and like various others, they would not have been ready during the war most likely just as 6 that were scheduled to be built were not.
One of the classic problems with not following history is you have no ability to base what *could* have happened should something else happen other then what historically happened.
To deal with this "what if?", a spawning rule was put in place to allow accelerated CV production. Should any of the first 6 CV's be sunk, the USA speeds up production of their CV's, generating what amounts to a replacement CV in record time. This rule only applies during the first part of the war when production tasking choices could have realistically been made.
If you look at the build times of hulls 10 (1.14 yrs), 12 (1.32 yrs), 16 (1.59 yrs) and 18 (1.69 yrs), you come to see that getting any CV's back could have happened in 500-600 days from when they were sunk.
At one extreme you loose nothing and get nothing, at the other extreme you loose 2 more then historical and get 6 extra generated. Should you do as history did and loose exactly 4, then you will end up with the historic 4 replacements and nothing will be amiss. Please look at the whole situation before assuming things are broken.
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 1:48 pm
by tsimmonds
Original: Mr.Frag
There are no CV's missing, there is a potential accelleration of CV production to make up for early CV losses.
OTOH, if none are lost, it looks like there is a marked deceleration of the Essex building plan. Using your dates:
Carrie_____________IRL arrival____________Game arrival
CV 9 ESSEX_________12/31/42_____________01/15/43
CV 10 YORKTOWN_____1/21/43____________not in game
CV 16 LEXINGTON_____2/17/43____________not in game
CV 17 BUNKER HILL____5/24/43_____________07/15/43
CV 11 INTREPID_______8/16/43_____________08/15/43
CV 18 WASP_________11/24/43____________not in game
CV 12 HORNET_______11/29/43____________not in game
CV 13 FRANKLIN_______1/31/44_____________11/15/43
CV 19 HANCOCK_______4/15/44_____________07/15/44
CV 14 TICONDEROGA ____5/8/44_____________05/15/44
CV 20 BENNINGTON______8/6/44_____________05/15/44
CV 38 SHANGRI-LA_____9/15/44______________09/15/44
CV 15 RANDOLPH_______10/9/44_____________08/15/44
CV 31 B H RICHARD____11/26/44_____________10/15/44
CV 36 ANTIETAM________1/28/45_____________11/15/44
CV 21 BOXER___________4/16/45_____________05/15/45
CV 39 LAKE CHAMPLAIN___6/3/45_____________02/15/45
Does this appear to match with your understanding of the reinforcement schedule in the game?
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 2:08 pm
by Mr.Frag
What would have logically happened is that the Essex class program would not have been so rushed and the Ticonderoga class CV's would have been the rule, not the exception which would have delayed most CV's while they went through that refit. It is questionable as to whether even the Essex would have not been delayed for a refit.
Where this whole mess gets really confusing is that had the USN not lost 4 CV's early on, the perceived value of CV's would probably not been so high as evidenced in their doctrine of use early in the war and we probably would have seen faster production of BB's instead. (after all, we all know who wrapped up all the old admirals were with their big guns!)
The wonderful world of "what if?"
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 2:37 pm
by Admiral DadMan
We could argue so many ways with this. All building programs were sped up. Before Pearl Harbor, CV construction took an average of 33 months; after it, 18. BBs 39 months before; after 32.
On VJ Day there were 19 USN Fleet CVs in commission:
- 1 Lexington class (Saratoga)
- 1 Yorktown class (Enterprise)
- 17 Essex class
Not all were on duty due to battle damage, but they were afloat.
If I had to chose between "respawning" and straight arrivals, I'd settle for straight arrival. "Respawning" can really skew the game.
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 2:42 pm
by tsimmonds
Original: Mr.Frag
What would have logically happened is that the Essex class program would not have been so rushed and the Ticonderoga class CV's would have been the rule, not the exception which would have delayed most CV's while they went through that refit.
Hm. IRL was there an "accelerate/decelerate CV building program" slider bar and an "Essex Class/Randolph Class" toggle switch? Whose finger would have been on these controls?[;)]
Seriously, was the Essex building program really so fine-tuned as this with respect to the losses actually incurred, or was the aim of the program just to get the ships completed and operating in the Pacific as quickly as possible?
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 2:54 pm
by Mr.Frag
I think you'll find that the Essex (original) was aimed at putting CV's in the water to catch up to Japan's numbers and the Ticonderoga was aimed at putting CV's in the water that would not be sunk quite so easy as the pre Essex class CV's were. Consider it the "lessons learned" version of the Essex class, but a lot of those changes were retrofitted onto hulls that had not been completed yet.
Because of the length of construction of ships of this scale, a lot of designs change between the time the paper is approved and the ship is commissioned, and various hulls are pulled for even more special design changes.
Since it didn't happen, there is really no way to project such a slider into the mix.
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 3:02 pm
by Mike Scholl
I still think Gary's refusal to change this feature is a basic reflection of the fact that the
Japanese player CAN influence production, and the Allied player CAN'T. It's his built
in "insurance policy" against the game where the Allied Player has a run of bad luck
and the Japanese player has pushed his flat-top production. Given the length of time
between losing a pre-war CV and getting the "freebie" an Allied player who needs to
recieve several is probably in a world of hurt from lack of mid-game progress. And it
seems it WILL be in the game, so there's not much use worrying about it now.
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 3:06 pm
by TIMJOT
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
What would have logically happened is that the Essex class program would not have been so rushed and the Ticonderoga class CV's would have been the rule, not the exception which would have delayed most CV's while they went through that refit. It is questionable as to whether even the Essex would have not been delayed for a refit.
Where this whole mess gets really confusing is that had the USN not lost 4 CV's early on, the perceived value of CV's would probably not been so high as evidenced in their doctrine of use early in the war and we probably would have seen faster production of BB's instead. (after all, we all know who wrapped up all the old admirals were with their big guns!)
The wonderful world of "what if?"
Frag, I will have to respectfully disagree with your acceleration "theory". The hulls laid down in late 41 early 42 were not arbitrarily accelerated. That they took less time to complete than hulls laid down in early 41 had more to do with certain production efficiencies ie: economies of scale, learning curves, training efficiencies, war time instead in oppose to peace time schedules, infrastructure and materials in place ect........ Rest assured those initial hulls would have been completed more or less on the historic schedule regardless of losses. Be that as it may. I'm done trying to understand the logic of the system. There has been about a 1/2 dozen different explanations given by 2by3 and various testers. The fact remains that the systems can result in double the Essex CVs in 43 even if there are only the 4 historic losses in 42. That being said I except this is the system in place and certainly doesnt diminish my eagerness to buy the game. Since as you point out there are house rule work arounds to deal with it.
Just to clarify though. I was useing approximate operational dates. I notice that the game appears to use "commission" dates ( in the case of the Franklin it's launch date) as entry dates. I assume this means that these ships and their airgroups enter the game untrained and with zero expirience.
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 3:22 pm
by tsimmonds
I think I may finally have figured out what this whole CV replacement process is aimed at. We all know how this war goes; the US burys Japan under an avalanche of production. One possible US strategy is to sit back, risking very little in the way of material loss, whilst amassing an overwhelming force of carriers by the end of 1943, then sweeping through the central Pacific during 1944 with an even more powerful force than was available IRL. Besides being an unrealistic strategy--US public opinion and the moral necessity of maintaining communications with Oz require more aggressiveness--this would lead to an extremely boring game. Those who would pursue this strategy of hoard-then-overwhelm are faced with the strong dis-incentive of losing some of the cream off the top of their CV production. Use your CVs historically, risk them in 1942, and your reward is having your losses made good in a somewhat historic manner; you will have a homogeneous force of improved carriers available for your main offensive. Coddle and cherish the prewar carriers ahistorically, and it will be the prewar carriers, not Essex class, that form the backbone of your CVTFs when the time for your big push finally rolls around. Finally, lose the prewar carriers in 44, and you won't get replacements for them until the end of 1945, by which time you already will have "lost" the "game". Does this make sense to anyone?
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 3:34 pm
by 2ndACR
Nothing in this whole thread makes sense. I just want the dang game, so that I can figure it out on my own. So hurry up testers.
RE: American CV name question.
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 3:58 pm
by Mr.Frag
Tim, the days in my post are (a) the historical dates from the naval shipyards and (b) the dates in the scenerio editor.
I will not comment on the (b) dates as I do not know where they come from or what their basis in reason is. I presume they are the result of as much research could be made from various sources. I am very much *not* an expert in historical facts and fiction hence no scenario work by me apart from obvious errors.
The (a) dates are mine and mine alone, dug up spending a hell of a lot of time digging through naval yard records. They are historical fact, but the ships were built on the east coast. How long it took to get into active service off the west coast and what the quality of the crews, commanders, aircraft pilots, etc were is anyones guess.
You can debate (b) all you want but not with me [;)]
Debate (a) at your peril [:D]
If you want to believe that the Tico refits would not have happened to the 4 hulls prior to leaving the east coast had the USN had 6 operational CV's in '42, I will disagree with you. The change to the bow for the inclusion of two 40mm quad mounts was approved and started in March 1943 on all ship not yet completed. It would have impacted the arrival date of the "hasty" 4 replacements because the upgrade would have been a heck of a lot cheaper to do while still in the yard instead of having them to come back into the yards on the West Coast that were already busy upgrading existing ships.
10 Essex class and 13 Ticonderoga and 1 oddball (Oriskany - SCB-27 program) along with 2 cancelled after being started and 6 others before contruction began made up the total of 32 which was the original order.