Matrix Games Forums

One last thought, a good number of US ships were cancelled because the war went well and they simply werent needed, since your providing the Japanese with 20 extra ships that could tilt the war, how about provide the cancelled ships in a seperate scenario labeled as what if? Just put them in the unused slots and when done make a seperate scenario where they arent listed with 9999 for arrival date.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

If my vote counts B2 would be acceptable.


Seperate question. Why not provide the historical allied ships that appear later in 45 and up to the end date in 46? As I understand it they are not currently in the OOB. The fact is ( for those willing to complain) that if the US had lost a lot of carriers those later carriers would have had shortened trials and would have appeared in the Pacific. Also provide some of the ships from the Atlantic that didnt make it in some of those slots with late year 45 early 46 arrival dates.

If the war is still going on then it is reasonable to assume the US and even Britian would have moved ships from that theater if they hadnt already been sent.

That will fill some of the allied slots with real ships and since your providing a what if for the Japanese would provide a late war what if for the Allies to help counter any late war shift by the Japanese.

While on about late war, what about allied land units that were earmarked for arrival in Pacific Theater if the war went on? Are they included in the current OOB? Add them too if the war drags on.

My own preference is for approximately this. My "personal" version will be 100% historical - B1 above plus late arriving ships into 1946.

Don, I just had a thought on new ships (using fictitious names). Why not do it like the original PTO did? Just use hull numbers? I.e., the new SUmner class DD 758 Paul G. Baker May/45 (historically Strong II, named after incomplete DE). Since she was in the Pacific, just name her DD-758. That way, the ships that served get in the game, and names need not be fabricated.

Twotribes...
That will fill some of the allied slots with real ships and since your providing a what if for the Japanese would provide a late war what if for the Allies to help counter any late war shift by the Japanese

The ships listed above ARE REAL SHIPS. These are the ships which were renamed after earlier vessels lost in the war. The ones listed all served in the Pacific. I just used names from cancelled ships, names which were origianally to be used on the renamed ships and in a few cases fictitious or plausable names (Ie USS Chesapeake is an acceptable name for a CV given it is the name of a Revolutionary War Battle and subsequently the name of a series of US warships).

I agree that adding more USN shipping is the best answer for eliminating empty slots. However, B2 allows for Japan to take advantage of the possibility that she is still in a position to build warships, something I believe which should be made possible. Don't know about that fourth Yamato though. A couple more Shokakus or Unryus would seem more plausible.

What's really funny is that it was this very debate over the duplication of ships names which most likely is the genesis of the darn respawn issue in the first place. [X(] Let's not lose the sight of the bubble folks. Either go with names or go with the boring hull numbers or go with as boring "name II" approach.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

We must decide how to address the re-spawn issue.

I was hoping that there was going to be two versions of CHS - one with respawning and one without.

I strongly prefer that a respawning option is retained, since that is the way I like to play the game. If option B (1 or 2) is taken that will most likely be lost. The only way to make a respawning version of such a scenario is by removing ships that the Japanese would otherwise get to use. No player of the Japanese is going to want to play such a scenario just to allow Allied respawning.

My vote is for option A, otherwise I think that the respawning option will become "lost". Obviously I would be very unhappy about that after contributing to the scenario for as long as I have.

I think that the only way to retain a true choice is for there to be two versions of the scenario - one with respawning and one without, but with other wise identical OOB (besides the necessary changes to Allied CV/CA/CL OOB). The best way to do that, IMHO, is to remove a number of the smallest (and late war) transport ships.

Seperate question. Why not provide the historical allied ships that appear later in 45 and up to the end date in 46? As I understand it they are not currently in the OOB. The fact is ( for those willing to complain) that if the US had lost a lot of carriers those later carriers would have had shortened trials and would have appeared in the Pacific.

In part, this is exactly what respawning simulates.

As a player, this is by far the most interesting aspect of the CHS. I would have to agree with Andrew in that the basic scenario should be respawn-capable, though I will not play that way. I really like the B1 and B2 options and would wait for them.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

We must decide how to address the re-spawn issue.

I was hoping that there was going to be two versions of CHS - one with respawning and one without.

I strongly prefer that a respawning option is retained, since that is the way I like to play the game. If option B (1 or 2) is taken that will most likely be lost. The only way to make a respawning version of such a scenario is by removing ships that the Japanese would otherwise get to use. No player of the Japanese is going to want to play such a scenario just to allow Allied respawning.

My vote is for option A, otherwise I think that the respawning option will become "lost". Obviously I would be very unhappy about that after contributing to the scenario for as long as I have.

I think that the only way to retain a true choice is for there to be two versions of the scenario - one with respawning and one without, but with other wise identical OOB (besides the necessary changes to Allied CV/CA/CL OOB). The best way to do that, IMHO, is to remove a number of the smallest (and late war) transport ships.

Seperate question. Why not provide the historical allied ships that appear later in 45 and up to the end date in 46? As I understand it they are not currently in the OOB. The fact is ( for those willing to complain) that if the US had lost a lot of carriers those later carriers would have had shortened trials and would have appeared in the Pacific.

In part, this is exactly what respawning simulates.

Andrew makes an excellent point here. Multiple versions were always the intent: re-spawn, non-respawn, hypothetical additional ships. It is really not that much work to provide a respawn version of the CHS - just need to decide what ships to remove from the Japanese OOB.

Nothing is going to get released until V1.5 comes out and it's changes are merged into CHS. Once I've done that I will create a re-spawn version by removing about 100 Japanese ships as listed in my previous post. We'll combine all other pending fixes and release as CHS Beta.

We can then create the "extra-Japanese" and "Non-respawn" versions. Mike, sorry but I am probably going to have to remove the 20 reserved ships slots in the base scenario to get re-spawn working - I know this will make your expanded version more difficult. Ron and Justin, I'll rebuild a full Japanese naval OOB for your respawn version and work with you on adding the replacement ships.

Then I'm going to retire and make my own version with such exquiste detail than no one but me would ever want to play it. Have you ever heard of Wren Force?? Robin Force?? How about the advanced seaplane refueling base on Tulagi in 1941??

Anyway, please keep comments comming in. Especially on Japanese ships to remove in the re-spawn version.

I think Andrew got it right when he said remove late war small transport ships. The only other thing that might be good would be the small late war subs. Between those two types and the 20 reserved slots, you shouldn't have a problem.

(I'm looking forward to the Non-Respawn + hypothetical ship version. can't wait)

Other candidates for removal are the two subs at Panama. I seem to recall it was questionable whether they should be added in the first place.

Maybe, if a number of Japanese ships need to be removed, then a small number of Allied transports should be as well. Only a handfull, but every little bit helps.

Lastly, I know it goes against what is needed, but it is also a great shame if there are NO Japanese "planned" ships at all. Even having a very small number of these would add to the interest, even at the cost of losing another 3-4 transports.

Japan's not going to win with more minesweepers(MWS's)!

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Other candidates for removal are the two subs at Panama. I seem to recall it was questionable whether they should be added in the first place.

Maybe, if a number of Japanese ships need to be removed, then a small number of Allied transports should be as well. Only a handfull, but every little bit helps.

Lastly, I know it goes against what is needed, but it is also a great shame if there are NO Japanese "planned" ships at all. Even having a very small number of these would add to the interest, even at the cost of losing another 3-4 transports.

Andrew

These are the Hypothetical ships in Lemurs planned variation. Twenty positions were left in the OOB to support them - 2 CV, 1 BB, 1 AV, 2 CA, 2 CL, 12 DD. All based on historical possibility. The reserved spots are in the alpha - look for ships with a name beginning with "NEW". Unfortuantely the twenty slots are on the list for probable removal.

The re-spawn problem only affects Japanese ships so pulling allied ships will not help. We can surely pull some marginal ships from the allied OOB for balance. Again, suggestions welcome.

Don

Don

I vote for B2 first B1 Second

Cobra Aus

I think we're jumping the gun. I've got a game into mid-may and the only MSW that respawned incorrectly was the first one that was sunk in December. Everything has worked perfectly once the japs had a few losses. I think it reuses the slots of sunk ships, but it may take a few turns for that slot to reactiveate. We may can get by with 20 or so ships deleted. Maybe just the Sea Trucks.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Other candidates for removal are the two subs at Panama. I seem to recall it was questionable whether they should be added in the first place.

No! Not my Barracudas! I fought tooth and nail to get them in....

Why not rip out a few transports? Its not like there isn't any to spare. [;)]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

I think we're jumping the gun. I've got a game into mid-may and the only MSW that respawned incorrectly was the first one that was sunk in December. Everything has worked perfectly once the japs had a few losses. I think it reuses the slots of sunk ships, but it may take a few turns for that slot to reactiveate. We may can get by with 20 or so ships deleted. Maybe just the Sea Trucks.

Keep us up to date please. Nothing is going to be done until after 1.5 come out. In the mean time, could you send me a save game??

No problem . . . but the save may not be as interesting as before. I lost two MSWs this morning. One respawned as Allied. [:(]

The re-spawn problem only affects Japanese ships so pulling allied ships will not help. We can surely pull some marginal ships from the allied OOB for balance. Again, suggestions welcome.

I thought that if the Japanese slots became full, then Japanese respawns would start filling up Allied slots, thus possibly preventing new Allied respawns if everything fills up. Is that assumption incorrect? I need to play this game more...

What i can't figure out is why the respawns are going to both sides. That is weird.

Mike

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I thought that if the Japanese slots became full, then Japanese respawns would start filling up Allied slots, thus possibly preventing new Allied respawns if everything fills up. Is that assumption incorrect? I need to play this game more...

They do indeed re-spawn into allied slots but the "new" ships become allied. The class of the ship is also chaned - have not figured that one out yet. The ship remained denoted as Japanese Navy Nationality but this seems to be ignored - if the ship is in the allied section it is assumed to be an allied ship. Apparently nationality it is only used to assign commander.

Mike Wood very kindly released a change list for V1.5 and it included no OOB changes. Pry did warn us about device changes to support the large AP bombs so we will have some work when 1.5 comes out, but hopefully not too much.