Interested in opinions about a map experiment - Panama screenshot added

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: stubby331

Personally, I'm not for this particular addition to your fine map.

It is scenario-specific: it is intended ONLY for the combined mod. And as I have mentioned if it does cause problems during our testing it won't be used even for that.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: stubby331

Personally, I'm not for this particular addition to your fine map.

It is scenario-specific: it is intended ONLY for the combined mod. And as I have mentioned if it does cause problems during our testing it won't be used even for that.

I can't see any potential problems. If Japan wants to interdict shipping to India, why not, this was possible. We can always up resources in Bombat to simulate the merchant route from South Africa.

[33Vyper]

I am a bit confused. How will the map changes 'break' the Allied AI.???

[Tankerace]

Yes, it will more than likely break the Allied AI.

As to using this map or not, when the mod began our rough outline (at least as I understood it) was to start by combining the best mods out there (Lemurs! Scenario, My OOB Graphic MOD, Subchaser and TheElf's plane art mods) into a large PBEM only mod. For this, more shipping and historically uncompleted ships would be added. While the mod may work vs the Japanese AI, its original intent was, and as I still understand it to be, PBEM. For AI play, we still have the stock scenarios, and the original mods of Lemurs and my scenarios which are basic light versions of this that are AI capable.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: 33Vyper

I am a bit confused. How will the map changes 'break' the Allied AI.???

Because the AI is used to reinforcements arriving in India and San Fransico, not Saudi Arabia and the Panama Canal. In addition, players should have a house rule to keep respawned CVs, CAs, and CLs in port, as those hulls are added to the game with either their original names (as of keel-laying) or hypothetical names chosen by the CHM team. If you play the Allied AI, not only will it use the newly added hulls, but the respawns as as well, and put the Japanese AI at an extreme disadvantage.

[33Vyper]

okay...so let me get this right....

The Allied AI would be confused by where it's replacements are comming from? You have to be kidding me. Are the AI routines that poor that it cannot see that a ship is in port...but just somewhere else?

I am a bit confuzled still about the respawing issue. So what you are saying is that if the Lady Lex gets whacked like normal the new MEGA MOD..(btw I like that name better than CHM) reminds me of godzilla for some reason...but back to the issue at hand....the lady lex gets whacked and the software immediately puts a new Essex class Lady Lex II in the slip. Not only is there that one but the MEGA MOD team has also added the historical Lady Lex II as well?

Me not trying to be bitch....well maybe a bit...had a bad day....but just not gettin my noggin around this

[Mr.Frag]

The Allied AI would be confused by where it's replacements are comming from? You have to be kidding me. Are the AI routines that poor that it cannot see that a ship is in port...but just somewhere else?

The AI expects it's stuff to come in certain areas. It has abilities to pack them up on ships and send them to other areas. Removing all assets from where it expects them to be will have the same effect as switching the ai off most likely.

Since these bases were not in existance when the AI was coded, it will likely ignore them. It's like starting a game of chess with no King then telling the computer to achieve a mate. With no king, it's rather tough to compute what to do.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: 33Vyper

okay...so let me get this right....


I am a bit confuzled still about the respawing issue. So what you are saying is that if the Lady Lex gets whacked like normal the new MEGA MOD..(btw I like that name better than CHM) reminds me of godzilla for some reason...but back to the issue at hand....the lady lex gets whacked and the software immediately puts a new Essex class Lady Lex II in the slip. Not only is there that one but the MEGA MOD team has also added the historical Lady Lex II as well?

If the Lady Lex gets wacked, then it respawns her (actually the new one would be Blue Ghost, but eh).

In the CHM-Mega Mod (whatever), you get the Lady Lex, and the USS Cabot. Cabot was the original name given to CV-16, which was changed to Lexington while building.

So, here are the CVs you get (assuming Lexington gets wacked in Scen 15)

USS Lexington CV-8
USS Lexington CV-16 (Essex class respawn).

The Same for CHM

USS Lexington CV-8
USS Cabot CV-16 (Assumes ship was not renamed)
USS Lexington CV-??

The mod was designed as PBEM, as the respawn carriers) would have to sit in dock and not be used (i.e. house rule). In an AI game, the AI would go "Fun, I get 2 carriers instead of three!"

With WitP's rules, you are shorted a carrier if you lose one(as was historical). However, CV-16 was building just after the war broke out, and had the Lady Lex not been sunk, she would have commissioned as the USS Cabot and you would have a higher (and more realistic) number of carriers. This way, it actually rewards the Allied player to conserve his carriers, or rather doesn't hurt the Japanese player to sink them. (The Independence class CVL Cabot was not laid down until after the Cabot CV-16 was renamed, so she will have a hypothetical name in CHM).

EDIT: I was just informed that apparently this is not the case, it was decided that the respawn rule was still in effect. Glad someone told me [:D]

[Don Bowen]

This is actually not correct. The basic CHS (for want of a better name) will use standard Matrix re-spawning processes and will not include the extra carriers that were omitted by Matrix. Provision is being made in the mod for two distinct types of extensions but THESE ARE NOT PART OF THE BASIC MOD AS IT WILL BE ISSUED:

1. Additional "might have been" ships: room has been left for additional Japanese Taihos, etc but these are NOT included in the basic mod
2. "Missing" carriers, etc: The CV, CL, etc that were omitted in the basic Matrix scenario (15) are NOT inluced in the CHS mod and no house rule concerning optional suppression of these ships is required.

Several players have expressed a desire to have these features and space has been left in the OOB to accomodate them but those will be done as extensions and not as part of the "baisc" mod.

Don

[Tankerace]

Apologies for any confusion. When the project was first started, this idea was one of its core concepts, and apparently I missed the staff meeting where it was decided to drop it. Oh well, back to WPO. At least there I know what's going on [:D]

[Bradley7735]

That's too bad (from my opinion). You guys are doing all the work and know what's best, but I sure wish you would include all historic hulls. I HATE the respawn rule and the fact that Matrix left out many historic hulls. Especially since this mod is primarily for PBEM, I would think that most players would want the historic ships and use a house rule to exclude respawned ships.

What are you guys doing regarding the missing, same named DD's, DE's and SS's? Will you include them or exclude them?

[Don Bowen]

Discussion of this function is ongoing within the scenario team. The basic positions are:

Matrix Respawn processing: Continue to exclude those ships that were excluded in the original scenario 15 – Yorktown II (CV-10), Hornet II (CV-12), etc. If a ship is lost it will be respawned in a function that approximates the replacing of war losses and the re-use of names. It might be Enterprise II, or even the historical ships – it’s up to game flow. And, if the number of carriers lost is greater or lesser than the actual number the OOB will be out of balance by the difference.

Full Historical OOB: Include the correct number of hulls and assign approximate names to those vessels that were renamed. Thus Yorktown II goes back to her original name of Bon Homme Richard and the historical Bon Homme Richard (CV-31) is given another name. The additional carrier names come from cancelled ships or appropriate alternatives. This means that any sunken ship that is respawned is a duplicate and can not be used. Players agree to a house rule by which any respawned ship is moved to an out-of-the-way location and not used.

Neither of these are ideal and a completely historical OOB is not possible under either. A full OOB is probably closest but does require the house rule and non-historical ship names – two things that seem to bother me much more than others.

Additional discussion is planned and we will get back to you. We’d like to hear your opinions …

[Bradley7735]

Hi Don,

You say that neither option allows a true historic OOB. I don't understand. I think your second option would give a true historic OOB. Is it just the names that would be inaccurate or are you saying that the number of ships would be inaccurate? I just don't see how people would not like this option. (other than the house rule part, it'd be much better if the coding could eliminate the respawned ships)

For the record, I would greatly prefer the Full Historical OOB option. However, instead of using original names and made up names, I'd just add the number 2 after the name of any historical ship named for a sunk one.

Anyway, that's my opinion, but I'll still be happy with what you end up producing.

bc

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

That's too bad (from my opinion). You guys are doing all the work and know what's best, but I sure wish you would include all historic hulls. I HATE the respawn rule and the fact that Matrix left out many historic hulls. Especially since this mod is primarily for PBEM, I would think that most players would want the historic ships and use a house rule to exclude respawned ships.

What are you guys doing regarding the missing, same named DD's, DE's and SS's? Will you include them or exclude them?

The non respawn is coming and will be released almost simultaneously. As the scenario mod grew in size and number of volunteers, the respawn aspect became a variant as not all people wanted it because not all were PBEM players and some actually 'like' the feature [X(][;)]. The fact that it became a variant is no biggie because the work is done and just has to be editted in. No reason why this CHS can't try to please those who like the respawn feature and those who don't (an approach which would have served the developers well by having added a toggle) or some such thing.

As for the missing "lesser ships" left out of OOB due to the name duplication issue, yes, they are already accounted for in the non respawn OOB. Any ships which have been accelerated regarding arrivals to compensate for flaws inherent to the respawn feature will be adjusted back to their historic availability dates.

USN Vessels Omitted/Affected By Spawning Feature/Name Duplication Issue

Essex Class

CV 10 Bon Homme Richard May/43 (historically Yorktown II)
CV 12 Kearsarge Dec/43 (historically Hornet II)
CV 16 Cabot March/43(historically Lexington II)
CV 18 Oriskany Dec/43(historically Wasp II)
CV 31 Reprisal Dec/44(historically Bon Homme Richard) *(Named after cancelled Essex)



Independence Class

CVL 28 Brandywine Aug/43 (historically Cabot)*(Famous Revolutionary War Battle and name of a carrier in “The Caine Mutiny”.

Baltimore Class

CA 70 Pittsburg Nov/43 (historically Canberra II)
CA 71 St. Paul Jan/44 (historically Quincy II)
CA 72 Albany Nov/44 (historically Pittsburg)
CA 73 Rochester March/45 (historically St. Paul)

Cleveland Class

CL 64 Flint Feb/44(historically Vincennes II)
CL 81 Vicksburg Jan/44(historically HoustonII)
CL 86 Cheyenne July/44(historically Vicksburg)
CL 90 Wilkes-Barre June/44(historically Astoria II)
CL 103 Buffalo Aug/44(historically Wilkes Barre)
CL104 Tallahassee Jan/45(historically Atlanta II)

Atlanta Class

CL 97 Spokane Oct/44(historically Flint)

Balao Class

SS 313 Nerka Jan/44(historically Perch II)*named after cancelled Balao and sub in “Run Silent, Run Deep”.
SS 314 Eel Feb/44(historically Shark II)*named after cancelled Balao
SS 315 Mocassin March/44(historically Sealion II)*named after earlier USN sub

Tench Class

SS 476 Sole Feb/45(historically Runner II)*named after cancelled Balao

Fletcher Class

DD 795 Boon Apr/44(historically Preston II, named after USN DD in C.S. Forrester Short Stories)
DD 796 O’Leary March/44(historically Benham II, named after USN DD in William P Mack novels)
DD 797 McKenna July/44(historically Cushing II, named after “Sand Pebbles” author.
DD 798 Mack Apr/44 (historically Monssen II, named after author W.P. Mack)
DD 799 Caine Aug/44 (historically Jarvis II, named after fictitious Wouk DMS)
DD 800 Roberts Aug/44 (historically Porter II, named after “Mr. Roberts”)
DD 801 Keeling Sep/44 (historically Colhoun II, named after DD in C.S. Forrester novel)
DD 802 Morton Sep/44 (historically Gregory II, named after Capt Morton in “Mr. Roberts”)
DD 803 Richardson Nov/44 (historically Little II, named after main character in “Run Silent, Run Deep”)

Allen M Sumner Class

DD 722 Keith Sep/44 (historically Barton II, named after main character in ‘The Caine Mutiny.”)
DD 723 Queeg Sep/44 (historically Walke II, named as per previous)
DD 724 Keefer Sep/44 (historically Laffey II, named as per previous)
DD 725 Holman Sep/44 (historically O’Brien II, named after main character in “The Sand Pebbles”)
DD 726 Clancy Sep/44 (historically Meredith II, named after novelist)
DD 727 DeVriess July/44 (historically DeHaven II, named after character in “The Caine Mutiny”)
DD 744 Moulton July/44 (historically Blue II, named after fictitious ship in “Caine Mutiny”)
DD 758 Reeman May/45 (historically Strong II, named after novelist)

Allen M Sumner Minelayer

DM 33 (ex DD 772) Savage (historically Gwin II, named after RSRD character)
DM 34 (ex DD 773) Beach (historically Aaron Ward II, named after novelist)

Gearing Class

DD 784 Wayne (historically McKean II, named after war movie star)
DD 805 Gable (historically Chevalier II, named after war movie star)
DD 877 Cagney (historically Perkins II, named after war movie star)

Edsall Class DEs

DE 129 Rivers July/45 (historically named Edsall II)
DE 131 Hill July/45 (historically named Hammann II)
DE 238 Land July/45 (historically named Stewart II)

Buckley Class Des

DE 154 Simpson Jan/45 (historically named Sims II)

* Anyone got better name suggestions for fictitiously named ships, fire away...I don't like half of mine. Thought about USS Saueracker and almost puked![:D] (if I tramslated it it would be... USS Crappyfarmland), USS Prince sounds good (for TankerAce), USS Bowen is in already I think, USS Lemurs sounds weird (can't remember Mike's last name), Subchaser's last name unknown but possibly Russian [;)], Elf's last name unknown, Yarnall already a Fletcher (actually named after Pry's ancestor!!![X(]), Kraemer a good possibility, (all the devs are in the pilot database)...who am I missing? USS Neer (mogami)? USS Mitchell 2ndACR)? Cobra's last name? USS Brown for Andy FOR SURE[&o]! (already one...must check), Nikademus (Steve, what's your last name?). Hey, USS Ronald? (yeechhhh)[8|][:(] USS Wood (for Mike)? USS Frag!!!!? (last name is?....Gardener?)

[Bradley7735]

Thanks Ron and Don!!! That is awesome news.

Woooo hoooo!! I think I'm more excited about the CHS mod than the 1.5 patch.

[Andrew Brown]

Neither of these are ideal and a completely historical OOB is not possible under either. A full OOB is probably closest but does require the house rule and non-historical ship names – two things that seem to bother me much more than others.

I'm with you on this one Don. I much prefer using the system as is, with the respawning. I don't like having to use house rules and I don't like non-historic ship names.

I think having two versions is the only real answer to this, given that people are split on the issue.

[Bradley7735]

Ha!! I like the Gearing names you came up with. USS Wayne. That one'll take Iwo Jima all by itself.

You can use my name, but it's already in there. USS Clark.

Thanks all of you for making two mods. I can't wait.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Neither of these are ideal and a completely historical OOB is not possible under either. A full OOB is probably closest but does require the house rule and non-historical ship names – two things that seem to bother me much more than others.

I'm with you on this one Don. I much prefer using the system as is, with the respawning. I don't like having to use house rules and I don't like non-historic ship names.

I think having two versions is the only real answer to this, given that people are split on the issue.

Issue here is that the historical hulls are in, more important than the names in my opinion. The fact that the majority of the capital ships have the original (cancelled) names lessens any "concern" over nomenclature a great deal. But yes, having two versions (respawn and non respawn) is the only way to go as the community is split and deserve a choice.

[CobraAus]

Cobra's last name?

Hamilton

2 versions way to go

Cobra Aus

[von Murrin]

Doesn't the respawn point to a particular type of hull or class? If so, would it be possible to change the class to some type of coal-burning tramp steamer? That would solve your respawn AI problem.