Sinking USN CVs - is it worth it?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Do the Allies gain an additional carrier for each pre-war carrier sunk or do they just get renamed Essex carriers that are already planned?

In other words, does the total number of Essex class carriers being built increase because of pre-war CV losses?

Part of me almost thinks it would be better to just severely damage the prewar Allied carriers rather than sink them if the Allies actually gained additional Essex class CVs. You wouldn't get the victory points but it would tie up repair points and require resources (like that would be a huge problem) and escorts to shepherd them back to port.

I can see the Jap pilots briefing now: "Yo, pilots, remember just damage, don't sink 'em." LOL.

Chez

If you lose all 6 prewar CVs within the given timeframe, you get 6 Essexes as replacements. These are assumed to be built from scratch because...

If US player does not lose any prewar CVs, he loses CV 10, 12, 16, and 18. They are assumed to be not built. Or, because other Essexes are accelerated, later ones are assumed as not built.

There's a whack of threads on this. Both sides are adamant in their positions as well.[8D]

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

All WitP is trying to model is the capabilities of US shipbuilding. As in real life, when losses in crucial weapons systems mounted, every effort was made to replace them as soon as possible. Nothing in the game "rewards" the Allied player for losing CVs, and nothing creates more Essex class CVs than were available historically.

I understand what it is "trying" to model. Unfortunately it does model anything like "real life" US shipbuilding capabilities in 1942.

I agree it doesnt creates "more" Essex CVs but it most certainly does rewards Allied players with more Essex CVs "earlier".

Historic Essex CV completed in time to become operational in 1943

Essex
Lexington II
Yorktown II
Bunkerhill

WitP Essex CV available in 1943

Essex
Intrepid
Bunkerhill
Franklin

Now in the game simply losing say, Lexington on exact historic date of May 8th 1942, results in this in 1943

Essex
Intrepid
Bunkerhill
Franklin
Lexington II

Sorry guys US CV ship yards were already working at capacity in 1942/43. No way you going to slip the one, two, three, four, five more Essex in 1943 that the game allows.

[Gem35]

If you lose your carriers early on you either aren't that smart or you are just plain dumb.[;)]

[DeepSix]

We all know that USN CVs, without Hellcats, aren't very much of a threat to the IJN.

How are you defining "threat?" [:)]

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

If you lose your carriers early on you either aren't that smart or you are just plain dumb.[;)]

Interesting comment. Which side are you referring to? I am playing a PBEM game as the Allies and I just lost two CVs. But, I was in the process of retaking Canton Island, I damaged at least 2 IJN CVs fairly extensively( each took a 1000 lb bomb with belt penetration) and 2 others took lighter damage. Basically, I traded 2 CVs for an island that I think is important, damage to IJN CVs( plus a number of Val and Kates were lost with their good pilots) and I do get 2 Essex Class CVs back in 18 months or so. How, why, and what kind of damage you do to the IJN CVs makes a lot of difference.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

If you lose your carriers early on you either aren't that smart or you are just plain dumb.[;)]

Define Early? Do you consider loseing a CV on the historic date early? One wouldnt neccessarily have to be incompetant to lose some CVs early in 42. In fact the USN could have very easily lost more CVs earlier. They could have easily lost 1 or 2 in the Doolittle raid, even the centpac raids. Certainly the aborted Rabaul Raid and certainly loseing Yorktown at Coral Sea doesnt stretch the imagination. Hell in early 42 Halsy sailed the Enterprise right up to Marcus island deep within the Japanese defense zone without ANY DD escorts[X(] Wouldnt take much imagination to see what might have happened had he ran into some IJN subs. You could say the USN was lucky not to have lost more CVs in 42.

[Ron Saueracker]

I noticed nobody brought up the ship name duplication/US ship building potential design feature during the chat. See...we can all play nice if we want to![;)]

[scout1]

Frankly, It's always a good thing to sink Allied CV's. Good for point, better for freedom of action. In the end the Allied juggernaut will steamroll the IJN, so might as well get as many of the buggers as possible [:D]

[Grotius]

But is it a sure thing that the IJN will win an early CV battle? I've now played the Coral Sea scenario three times PBEM because I have friends who are just learning WITP and want to try the shortest scenario. In one of the games Japan sank 2 CVs to one CVL, but in the other the Allies almost sank Shokaku with comparatively little damage in return, by sneaking up close (using reaction movement) and getting the Devastators in on the action. I guess maybe it's different with KB, but even KB can lose. See, e.g., that whole Battle of Midway thing.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

All WitP is trying to model is the capabilities of US shipbuilding. As in real life, when losses in crucial weapons systems mounted, every effort was made to replace them as soon as possible. Nothing in the game "rewards" the Allied player for losing CVs, and nothing creates more Essex class CVs than were available historically.

I understand what it is "trying" to model. Unfortunately it does model anything like "real life" US shipbuilding capabilities in 1942.

I agree it doesnt creates "more" Essex CVs but it most certainly does rewards Allied players with more Essex CVs "earlier".

Historic Essex CV completed in time to become operational in 1943

Essex
Lexington II
Yorktown II
Bunkerhill

WitP Essex CV available in 1943

Essex
Intrepid
Bunkerhill
Franklin

Now in the game simply losing say, Lexington on exact historic date of May 8th 1942, results in this in 1943

Essex
Intrepid
Bunkerhill
Franklin
Lexington II

Sorry guys US CV ship yards were already working at capacity in 1942/43. No way you going to slip the one, two, three, four, five more Essex in 1943 that the game allows.

As the following write-up of the 10 ships of the Essex class shows, the "replacement" carriers were already being built and were in fact renamed from their original names:

Yorktown (CV-5) was sunk 7 June 1942 and her replacement, Yorktown II (CV-10), had her keel laid in December 1941 and was renamed from 'Bon Homme Richard' in September 1942.

Hornet (CV-8) was sunk 27 October 1942 and her replacement, Hornet II (CV-12), had her keel laid in August 1942 and was renamed from ' Kearsarge' in January 1943.

Lexington (CV-2) was sunk 8 May 1942 and her replacement, Lexington II (CV-16), had her keel laid in July 1941 and was renamed from "Cabot" in June 1942.

Wasp (CV-7) was sunk 15 September 1942 and her replacement, Wasp II (CV-18), had her keel laid in March 1942 and was renamed from 'Oriskany' in November 1942.

[ChezDaJez]

Thanks for the info.

Chez

[Milman]

I want those 4 CV's in my ship pool and I don't need those ghost CV's which we get afther 500+ days .

[Gem35]

Define Early? Do you consider loseing a CV on the historic date early? One wouldnt neccessarily have to be incompetant to lose some CVs early in 42. In fact the USN could have very easily lost more CVs earlier. They could have easily lost 1 or 2 in the Doolittle raid, even the centpac raids. Certainly the aborted Rabaul Raid and certainly loseing Yorktown at Coral Sea doesnt stretch the imagination. Hell in early 42 Halsy sailed the Enterprise right up to Marcus island deep within the Japanese defense zone without ANY DD escorts Wouldnt take much imagination to see what might have happened had he ran into some IJN subs. You could say the USN was lucky not to have lost more CVs in 42.

TIMJOT, I won't argue with you there, as in historical reality we( USN ) were lucky. But in Historical Unreality(i.e. WitP) is where I was coming from with my comments. I also was referring from an Allied perspective. maybe I should have use different words such as impatient or aggressive because that is a sure way to lose your carriers to the japs. Sorry if I seemed a bit obtuse.[;)]

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
respawn

If you would all stop using grape-jelly-for-brains invented language as a substitute for real thinking and analysis, you might get somewhere with this.

All WitP is trying to model is the capabilities of US shipbuilding. As in real life, when losses in crucial weapons systems mounted, every effort was made to replace them as soon as possible. Nothing in the game "rewards" the Allied player for losing CVs, and nothing creates more Essex class CVs than were available historically.

And the cruisers?
And Australia, that great naval superpower that surely must have stopped producing ships just like the US, because it just got too boring fighting Japan? [:D]

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: dereck


As the following write-up of the 10 ships of the Essex class shows, the "replacement" carriers were already being built and were in fact renamed from their original names:

Yes Derek, I think we are all aware that these carriers are just renamed hulls of ships already being built. The point is that historically 4 of those carries regardless of what they ended up being named were completed in time to become operational in the pacific in 1943. The game gives you four Essex CVs as well, regardless of what happens to any of the pre-war CVs. The problem isnt the total number of Essex available in the game. Its that an Essex is "inserted" into the arrival list 550 days from the sinking of any pre-war CV. This means that any CVs sunk in the first 6 months of the war will cause an "EARLY" arrival of an Essex in 1943. For a possible total of 9 Essex CVs appearing in 1943.

Hence my example of even the historic lost of the Lexington on the historic date will ultimately result in a unhistorical number of Essex CVs available in 1943.

[TIMJOT]

Sorry Nik and Frag, I know its beating a dead horse. Just cant help myself on this particular issue[;)]

[Nikademus]

dont worry about it. For what its worth, i agree. (and have said similar in the past) Not even the US can build ships on the fly. Otherwise Drumbeat would have been a breeze.

[moses]

The whole problem with the replacement ships is this:

Even if it is totally correct when you analyze the ships the U.S. recieves.
Even if exhaustive analysis shows the rule to be sound.

It still doesn't "feel" right when you are playing as the Japanese
It "feels" like every time you sink a ship it doesn't matter.

Logically it doesn't matter because how many players get to turn 550 anyway? By turn 550 U.S. should have tons of ships anyway. Plus by sinking lots of U.S. ships Japan benifits greatly by being able to run wild in 42.

Still its annoying. You score a big victory as Japan and in the midst of your celabration your opponent announces that two new CV's just showed up on his sheduale.

[Mr.Frag]

We have always gone by the logic that the Allies would not deliberately throw their CV's away just to get new ones. People playing that way are really being silly.

On a serious note, exchanging a CV for a CV is really meaningless, the reason you have CV's is to cart aircraft around. All Allied CV's have the same capacity so trading 500-600 days of doing without for a replacement that has *slightly* better AA strengths just does not make sense. The original CV's all have upgrade paths that make them pretty much the same as an Essex.

Remember that it is 500-600 days, not 550 exactly, so playing this kind of gamble is not a sure thing.

Throwing away 1200 VP is in itself also a silly thing to do. Add to this VP, the losses you will take during the time period that Japan's CV's rule the world with no threat and you start to grasp just how silly it it.

A lot of our views of Japan's strength comes from post Midway history. Had a Midway type event not happened, or an reverse Midway (even worse), Japan would have run rampant for a lot longer and the ability of the Allies to establish bases to project their air power would have been *seriously* threated.

The moral of the story always comes back to this. It is up to the Allies to loose the game. Tossing away your 4 starting CV's is a good step in that direction. No CV's means Japan can sit off Johnson Island and simply run fuel convoys to keep a permanent block on PH while running unchecked everywhere else. Without CV's to counter, Nells and Bettys will rule everywhere else. While the USA gets advanced aircraft, they do *not* have the range to fly to Oz, they have to be *shipped* there so the war will continue unchecked.

[Nikademus]

dont have to tell me.....my objective whether playing Allies or Japanese is to lose as few assets as possible....particularily warships. Besides the savings in VP it makes for more realistic play when you treat your assets as if there were lives at stake.