it makes for more realistic play when you treat your assets as if there were lives at stake.
Isn't that always the case with any wargame ... over the years I have noticed that people always tend to be far more brutal with their assets then they would have ever been in the real world. We try and model this with things like morale, and vp, but people continue to keep on doing it no matter how tough you make it on them.
It would be interesting to have some kind of public sympathy system modelled where each event would cost or gain willpower points ... you would have to maintain within this range to not be fired. High losses would shift you one way, but overworking assets would *also* shift you in that direction ... resting and repairing and planning would shift it back the other way.
The problem with WitP is you can't get fired for being cruel [:D]
Frag I totally agree with you that its silly for a player to throw away his CVs just to get Essex CVs earlier. The problem with this system is that a player doenst have to neccessarily be attentially silly or overtly aggressive to lose some CVs in the first 6 months of the war. Even perfectly prudent play or just historic losses will result in Essex CVs arriveing earlier than is plausible in the timeframe aloted.
Its reasonable for a Japanese player to feel inflicting losses early and often would help stem the comming US tide. This system as implemented has the effect of actually accelerating the inevitable arrival of that tide.
Its reasonable for a Japanese player to feel inflicting losses early and often would help stem the comming US tide. This system as implemented has the effect of actually accelerating the inevitable arrival of that tide.
Thats why we threw the 100 day range in ... it is not such a predictable outcome. I believe the record build time was 226 days for an Essex class CV ... Had the situation been critical enough, they would have been able to toss out more.
The "don't have the yard space" argument doesn't really hold water when you keep in mind that the yard space is only required until the ship is floated, which is less then that 226 days.
With a 500-600 day game turnaround time it is easy to see that it is quite reasonable compared to a 226 day build time which was the peak production speed.
If one looks at the hull dates from CV-9 onwards and simply adds 180 days (actual yard time ballpark) and slips in the next hull across the yards that were actually used (7 if memory serves), one could really have turfed out far more CV's then the USA built in the timeframes allowed. It would have almost been tougher to keep up with the air groups then the CV's to carry them.
Its reasonable for a Japanese player to feel inflicting losses early and often would help stem the comming US tide. This system as implemented has the effect of actually accelerating the inevitable arrival of that tide.
Thats why we threw the 100 day range in ... it is not such a predictable outcome. I believe the record build time was 226 days for an Essex class CV ... Had the situation been critical enough, they would have been able to toss out more.
The "don't have the yard space" argument doesn't really hold water when you keep in mind that the yard space is only required until the ship is floated, which is less then that 226 days.
Its more than a question of yard space. No nation can just lose a major warship and turn around and say....HOLD EVERYTHING! We just lost a carrier......lay down a new one....NO!...make that Two carriers!. You can just alter a shipbuilding program on the fly without causing administrative ripples. When German subs started sinking US merchants left and right.....the USN wasn't able to say HOLD EVERYTHING! we're losing merchants.....lay down a class of sub chasers!...NO...make that some sub chasers and a few DE's. No can do....priorities in building had been set and could not be easily altered. The US had to sleep in the bed that was made before the shooting started and make do with what they had. Meddling with the produciton plans might have resulted in delays and further chaos.
In my mind, the earlier loss of a carrier or two would not have impacted the US build program. They knew the ships were coming. More likely they would just have altered their strategy to conserve the remaining assets.
Oh, I'm not saying it's an instant effect, but we don't have an instant effect in the game ... all I am saying is the build time for an Essex is 230 odd days. In the game you will get one back in a minimum of *double* that time. Hardly what one would call *rushing* the job. People seem to think that they get these CV's back in record time ... I am just trying to make the point clearly that they are *not* getting them back in record time ... as that would be in less then 250 days, not 500-600 days. [;)]
the USN wasn't able to say HOLD EVERYTHING! we're losing merchants.....lay down a class of sub chasers!...
They went one better then that Nik, they built cargo ships faster then Germany could build torpedoes to sink them and simply said why bother with sub chasers! [:D]
Your citing the "record" build time. Not all of the carriers could be built so fast. Britian built Dreadnought in record time....but wasn't able to repeat it on demand.
I don't see how the allied player gets more CV's in WITP in 43 than historical. Timjot, I think your data is incorrect.
You say historically, Essex, Lex2, york2 and Bunkerhill came in in 43. I also count Intrepid (8/43), and Hornet2 and Wasp2 (late 43). And Franklin arrives on 1/44.
That's 7 essexes in 43. I don't have WITP in front of me, so I can't vouch the arrival dates of the game, but you listed 4 as coming in 43 (Essex, Intrepid, Bunkerhill and Franklin).
I guess the game gives an early arrival date for Franklin, but in order for the US player to get the historical CV's he has to lose at least 3 in 42. And he has to lose them fairly early in 42 to get them within a historical time frame.
The allied player also has to lose a lot of CL's and CA's to get the historical number of Baltimores and Clevelands (there were 29 Clevelands, historically. I doubt there are 29 in the database)
Everyone keeps bitching about this stupid rule. Allied players say that if I play well and don't lose CV's, then I get screwed by 4 Essexes. Japanese players say that what is the point of sinking allied CV's, they're just going to get more.
Take out the damn rule and put in the historical ships with accurate arrival dates!!!!!!!! All you have to do is add the number 2 to the name of the new ship with a duplicate name.
I can't wait for the CHS (CHM) coming soon to a theatre near you.
[
Thats why we threw the 100 day range in ... it is not such a predictable outcome. I believe the record build time was 226 days for an Essex class CV ... Had the situation been critical enough, they would have been able to toss out more.
The "don't have the yard space" argument doesn't really hold water when you keep in mind that the yard space is only required until the ship is floated, which is less then that 226 days.
With a 500-600 day game turnaround time it is easy to see that it is quite reasonable compared to a 226 day build time which was the peak production speed.
If one looks at the hull dates from CV-9 onwards and simply adds 180 days (actual yard time ballpark) and slips in the next hull across the yards that were actually used (7 if memory serves), one could really have turfed out far more CV's then the USA built in the timeframes allowed. It would have almost been tougher to keep up with the air groups then the CV's to carry them.
Frag your numbers are greatly skewed because you average build rates between 1941 and 1945. By 43-44 the shipyards had attained all important learning curve and reached certain level of economies of scale and infrastucture needed. You have to look at 41-42 build rates in isolation to determine the number of Essex available in 43.
The primary CV shipyards Quincy & Newport News were already working at capacity, while the secondary yards NewYork, Philly and Norfork were just gearing up. I think you are greatly simplifing the process. I also respectfully disagree, the slip and (SKILL) arguement is very valid. Contrary to belief the were a verly limited number of slips and shipyards in the US capable of handling CV constructuon in 1942. It might be invalid regarding the number of Essex that could be available in 1944 but NOT 43.
Personally I dont understand why there is even a debate about this. The fact is that even just the historic lost of one CV in the first 6 months of the game will result in an additional Essex in 1943. Where is the rational to that?
BTW This is the first time I heard that its been changed to a variable upward to 600 days. When did this happen? It says 550 in the manual and I havnt seen any patch notes indicating this is the case.
BTW This is the first time I heard that its been changed to a variable upward to 600 days. When did this happen? It says 550 in the manual and I havnt seen any patch notes indicating this is the case.
It was always 500-600, just missed the manual ... I whined at Mike that having a *set* date resulted in people playing the system ... the 550 became 550 +/- 50 to ensure that multiple CV losses on the same day didn't result in the whole fleet showing up on the same turn.
I don't see how the allied player gets more CV's in WITP in 43 than historical. Timjot, I think your data is incorrect.
You say historically, Essex, Lex2, york2 and Bunkerhill came in in 43. I also count Intrepid (8/43), and Hornet2 and Wasp2 (late 43). And Franklin arrives on 1/44.
laThat's 7 essexes in 43. I don't have WITP in front of me, so I can't vouch the arrival dates of the game, but you listed 4 as coming in 43 (Essex, Intrepid, Bunkerhill and Franklin).
I guess the game gives an early arrival date for Franklin, but in order for the US player to get the historical CV's he has to lose at least 3 in 42. And he has to lose them fairly early in 42 to get them within a historical time frame.
The allied player also has to lose a lot of CL's and CA's to get the historical number of Baltimores and Clevelands (there were 29 Clevelands, historically. I doubt there are 29 in the database)
Everyone keeps bitching about this stupid rule. Allied players say that if I play well and don't lose CV's, then I get screwed by 4 Essexes. Japanese players say that what is the point of sinking allied CV's, they're just going to get more.
Take out the damn rule and put in the historical ships with accurate arrival dates!!!!!!!! All you have to do is add the number 2 to the name of the new ship with a duplicate name.
I can't wait for the CHS (CHM) coming soon to a theatre near you.
Bradely
I believe you are looking at launch or commisioning dates NOT operational dates. The Intrepid did become operational at the end of December 1943 on the east Coast, but for all practical purpurses was not available until 1944. Hornet, Wasp and Franklin were not operational until 1944.
Remember after commisioning you need to train the crews and run shakedowns that typically can last 3-4 months.
well....... Personally, I'm not 'bitching' about it. Its not 'that' big a deal for me though I get a little out of sorts when people attribute magical powers of production to the US when justifying the rule. Yes we were (still) are the leader of the economic pack, but even we had to obey the natural laws of the universe.
If I don't lose any of the 6 prewar CV's, by June 43 I should have: Lex1, Sara, York 1, Enterprise, Hornet1, Wasp1, Essex, Lex2, York2 and Bunkerhill. That's 10 CV's by June 43 (historical).
in WITP, I'd have 8 (6 prewar, essex and bunkerhill). A good allied player who doesn't lose any of his prewar CV's gets screwed in June 43 by two CV's.
By 12/43, its even worse. Assume no CV losses for the allied player. I'd have the 10 from above plus Intrepid, Hornet2 and Wasp2 (that's 13 CV's).
In WITP, I'd have 10 (6 prewar, essex, intrepid, bunkerhill and Franklin) I'm now screwed by 3 CV's in late 43.
The model does not reward good play to the allied player. It does the opposite in that Japan faces fewer CV's if they are unsuccessful in sinking CV's in 42.
If I don't lose any of the 6 prewar CV's, by June 43 I should have: Lex1, Sara, York 1, Enterprise, Hornet1, Wasp1, Essex, Lex2, York2 and Bunkerhill. That's 10 CV's by June 43 (historical).
in WITP, I'd have 8 (6 prewar, essex and bunkerhill). A good allied player who doesn't lose any of his prewar CV's gets screwed in June 43 by two CV's.
By 12/43, its even worse. Assume no CV losses for the allied player. I'd have the 10 from above plus Intrepid, Hornet2 and Wasp2 (that's 13 CV's).
In WITP, I'd have 10 (6 prewar, essex, intrepid, bunkerhill and Franklin) I'm now screwed by 3 CV's in late 43.
The model does not reward good play to the allied player. It does the opposite in that Japan faces fewer CV's if they are unsuccessful in sinking CV's in 42.
Are you telling me that I should be grateful to Gen.Hoepner 'cause he sank two of my USN CVs?
[&:]
This whole argument would be academic if it wasn't for Ens Yoshida.[:D]
"WHO IS THE f*%^ IS ENSIGN YOSHIDA?" you ask.
He's the guy down in the bean locker on the Kitikami (or one of those other relatively rare radar equipped Japanese ships early on) who keeps such amazing control of a 150 A6M CAP which intercepts 99% of all Allied air strikes on 2-4 separate task forces (the Death Star) over a 10000 sq mile area of ocean and insures that the 80% of the carrier battles that EVER occurred will either never happen or are a foregone conclusion as a Japanese victory.
So what if the US has less carriers in 1943 if they lose none in 42. They'll still have enough to challenge Ens Yoshida to a duel. The F6Fs and the flak will make mincemeat of the Japanese airgroups and there will still be a bunch of Essexes and Independences coming off the ways to replace any losses. In 1944 then the remaining 1 CV battle will then occur and it'll be "SAYONARA" to Ens Yoshida and most of his ilk.
The U.S. had enormous resources and although we couldn't conjure CVs out thin air and Mr Frags data shows that many of those carriers (9) were laid down in 41 or 42 and that it was possible to complete them in less than a year. And if the U.S. had really gotten hammered in 42 by IJN carriers I'm pretty confident that the work on those carriers would have received some extra encouragement and their completion/workup/training dates could have been accelerated even more than the actual events.
The Death Star never happened. If it was a capability of the IJN it would have.
Making it a capability of the IJN perverts the course of the war. IJN CAP never once completely stopped even a single USN carrier squadron from launching potentially lethal weapons at their carriers.
If I don't lose any of the 6 prewar CV's, by June 43 I should have: Lex1, Sara, York 1, Enterprise, Hornet1, Wasp1, Essex, Lex2, York2 and Bunkerhill. That's 10 CV's by June 43 (historical).
in WITP, I'd have 8 (6 prewar, essex and bunkerhill). A good allied player who doesn't lose any of his prewar CV's gets screwed in June 43 by two CV's.
By 12/43, its even worse. Assume no CV losses for the allied player. I'd have the 10 from above plus Intrepid, Hornet2 and Wasp2 (that's 13 CV's).
In WITP, I'd have 10 (6 prewar, essex, intrepid, bunkerhill and Franklin) I'm now screwed by 3 CV's in late 43.
The model does not reward good play to the allied player. It does the opposite in that Japan faces fewer CV's if they are unsuccessful in sinking CV's in 42.
EXACTLY! Hence my comment about retards.[:D] No fear, an historical version of the big mod is coming so those who wish to play a non respawn version of the game can. PBEM or Allies vs AI only.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
This whole argument would be academic if it wasn't for Ens Yoshida.[:D]
"WHO IS THE f*%^ IS ENSIGN YOSHIDA?" you ask.
He's the guy down in the bean locker on the Kitikami (or one of those other relatively rare radar equipped Japanese ships early on) who keeps such amazing control of a 150 A6M CAP which intercepts 99% of all Allied air strikes on 2-4 separate task forces (the Death Star) over a 10000 sq mile area of ocean and insures that the 80% of the carrier battles that EVER occurred will either never happen or are a foregone conclusion as a Japanese victory.
So what if the US has less carriers in 1943 if they lose none in 42. They'll still have enough to challenge Ens Yoshida to a duel. The F6Fs and the flak will make mincemeat of the Japanese airgroups and there will still be a bunch of Essexes and Independences coming off the ways to replace any losses. In 1944 then the remaining 1 CV battle will then occur and it'll be "SAYONARA" to Ens Yoshida and most of his ilk.
The U.S. had enormous resources and although we couldn't conjure CVs out thin air and Mr Frags data shows that many of those carriers (9) were laid down in 41 or 42 and that it was possible to complete them in less than a year. And if the U.S. had really gotten hammered in 42 by IJN carriers I'm pretty confident that the work on those carriers would have received some extra encouragement and their completion/workup/training dates could have been accelerated even more than the actual events.
The Death Star never happened. If it was a capability of the IJN it would have.
Making it a capability of the IJN perverts the course of the war. IJN CAP never once completely stopped even a single USN carrier squadron from launching potentially lethal weapons at their carriers.
Hmmm. One has to wonder how the Kitikami can radio vectors to CAP with no radios. LOL[:D]
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
