Matrix Games Forums

Also provided "Admiral Scholl" is "reckless and foolish" very early in 1942...., and that
he's very lucky (in your frame of reference) and the ships are actually sunk (triggering
replacement) and not merely pounded to wrecks and requiring 2 years of repair.

I'm sure somebody may try this tactic, but I can also assure you that it won't be me.
If I lose carriers in 1942, it will be because of being outsmarted by my opponant, or
suffering from my usual abysmal luck. May of 1942 to February of 1943 is not a
period I would want to be without the "mobile backstop" of a carrier force.

If there was an "Allied Production Option" in the game, you can bet there would be a
lot more Essex getting into the war. As there won't be one, this is the only issue. It's
not perfect by a long shot (I'd like to churn out another 50 subs to meet the Improved
ASW efforts the Game Japanese will probably make), but it's been made pretty plain
that it will be there. So in the immortal words of my Mom, "quityrbitchin" and make
whatever arraingements you need to with your opponants to work with it.

Whatever Allied fanboy who throws away four CVs early in 1942 gives me the Hawaiian Islands and a couple of extra dead Essexes later on trying to cope with my still-intact, and by-then-equipped-with-even-stronger-air-groups Kido Butai.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Also provided "Admiral Scholl" is "reckless and foolish" very early in 1942...., and that
he's very lucky (in your frame of reference) and the ships are actually sunk (triggering
replacement) and not merely pounded to wrecks and requiring 2 years of repair.

Its not really a matter of being reckless or foolish. I wouldnt consider loosing the historical number of CVs in 42 even if its a few months earlier as an indication of poor play. By useing them aggressively in early 42 you might even have caused enough setbacks that you are actually ahead of the game by mid to late 42. Regardless 4 is just historical corillary. How about 3 or 2? Could you manage going into 43 with just 3 or 4 CVs if you knew you were going to get 7 or 6 Essex in 43 instead of the historical 4? Especially when you consider the USN never had more than 4 operational CVs in the pacific in any given time in 1942. It only had two by 43.

IMO your production balancing theory if off base. From what I understand the IJN will not be able to significantly alter major ship production and if they do shift to ASW then they wont even get there measley historic output of CVs.

Besides I am not really bitching. I said many times I realize its in the game to stay and can live with it. I am simply trying to understand this seemingly blind rationalization for the irrational.[;)]

That's what I'm saying. No Allied Player in his right mind is going to go out looking
to get his CV's sunk in early '42..., so I'm not sure what all the worry is about this
"tactic". If during the course of the game some are sunk (and replaced 18 months
later) then the Allies will have a few extra at the end of the war. But with the Japs
able to modify their production, there will quite probably be a few extra showing up
early on the other side as well.... And the players can always agree to some sort
of "arraingement" if they feel strongly about this issue. It's been beaten to death,
and it's time to move on.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
it's time to move on.

Nothing more to see here (although Admiral Scholl was kind of a kicky concept).

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Whatever Allied fanboy who throws away four CVs early in 1942 gives me the Hawaiian Islands and a couple of extra dead Essexes later on trying to cope with my still-intact, and by-then-equipped-with-even-stronger-air-groups Kido Butai.

Pasternaski, You try to take Hawaii after May 42 and you lose the game by 43. What you think you can sink 4 of my CVs without the loss of any of your own? By Feb 42 the USN can have 5 CVs to the IJNs 6. Why is it assumed that the IJN will always have its way those first 6 months is beyond me?

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT
Pasternaski, You try to take Hawaii after May 42 and you lose the game by 43. What you think you can sink 4 of my CVs without the loss of any of your own? By Feb 42 the USN can have 5 CVs to the IJNs 6. Why is it assumed that the IJN will always have its way those first 6 months is beyond me?

I was just reacting to the assertion that you need to take advantage of the Allied production rules by throwing away at least four of your CVs in early '42 so as to start getting Essexes often and early in '43. In exchange, the way I see it, I get to add at least another six months to Yamamoto's "give them he11" period. I expect an overly aggressive Allied player to run afoul of my dear girlfriend Betty, accompanied by her younger brother Zeke, and even have some trouble with my hiphop friend "I-Boat."

It may not be a lock, but I assure you that an Allied player who comes at me with both guns blazing in early '42 is going to pay a heavy price, or I'm going to be ashamed when acquainting my ancestors with the fact of my failure of the Yamato people.

And, yes, against a reckless Allied player, I do believe I can sink at least four CVs without losing any of my own (and mete out other cruel punishment, as well).

Of course, I suppose I ought to buy the game and learn how to play it before shooting my mouth off, huh?

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

And, yes, against a reckless Allied player, I do believe I can sink at least four CVs without losing any of my own (and mete out other cruel punishment, as well).

Well, doesnt have to be reckless. You could just be unlucky or It could be a brilliant allied player's trap that nets him 4 IJN CVs for the price of 4 of his own. I think many allied player's would gladly trade 4 for 4 early on especially he knows he will now get 8 new CVs in 43. He might have second thoughts if he new at best he could only be back at status quo in 43.

Of course, I suppose I ought to buy the game and learn how to play it before shooting my mouth off, huh?

Yes point taken, of course you are right about that[;)] Anyway its all moot to me since as an allied player I consider this respawning unrealistic cheat and accordingly will be parking any respawns on the westcoast for the duration.

I've seen several references to the old Pacific War game and its respawn function. FYI, it has been removed in version 3.1:

Version 3.1 Changes

1. Removed the USN sunk ship replacement.
USN ships will no longer re-appear X many turns after being sunk.
USN ships have their original replacement ships appear at historic times with their original, pre-renaming names (included are Essex CV, Baltimore CA, Cleveland CL, Oakland CLAA)

For example here are the carriers...

Class Historical New Name
Essex Yorktown II B.H.Richard
Essex Hornet II Kearsage
Essex Lexington II Cabot
Essex Wasp II Oriskany

**The USS Cabot (Independence Class) was renamed to the USS Wright.
**The USS B.H.Richard (Essex Class) was renamed to the USS Reprisal.

In my opinion, this was a good move. The respawn in WitP will be a step back. To add my worthless 0.02 Euro-Cent (I know it's in vain since the decision is made, but maybe if we whine loud enough...), I think US shipyards were already gearing up before PH, and there was little leeway to squeeze in additional hulls on short notice as replacements for CVs lost in combat. Furthermore, I don't think the USN explicitly ordered CV hulls as replacements for war losses, they ordered those ships in entire batches - 13 by Dec 1941, ten in August 1942, more later (mostly cancelled). The August 42 batch *might* be seen as replacements for the three pre-war CVs lost by that time, but those replacement CVs actually took longer to built on average (24 months, not counting Oriskany) than the first 'two-ocean-Navy-expansion' batch (18 months average), so it doesn't look like there was real urgency felt and/or capacity to spare for speedy replacement of war losses.
To cut it short, like some others here I don't think the US shipyards have been able to 'respawn' lost carriers within 500 or so days after the war loss of a CV, so the WitP shipyards shouldn't be able to do this either. I can live with hull numbers bearing 'wrong' names, but hulls that were built IRL but not showing up in WitP when the original name-bearer isn't sunk or vice versa or whatever the system currently is in WitP according to this confusing thread just doesn't make sense. Make the hulls available at the historic dates and give them their original names, just like in PacWar v3.1. Easy, least troublesome and not nearly as controversial as this respawn thing, IMO.

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I can live with hull numbers bearing 'wrong' names, but hulls that were built IRL but not showing up in WitP when the original name-bearer isn't sunk or vice versa or whatever the system currently is in WitP according to this confusing thread just doesn't make sense. Make the hulls available at the historic dates and give them their original names, just like in PacWar v3.1. Easy, least troublesome and not nearly as controversial as this respawn thing, IMO.

Definitely agree LST. It is high time perhaps that Gary Grigsby answers the question here.

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
To cut it short, like some others here I don't think the US shipyards have been able to 'respawn' lost carriers within 500 or so days after the war loss of a CV, so the WitP shipyards shouldn't be able to do this either. I can live with hull numbers bearing 'wrong' names, but hulls that were built IRL but not showing up in WitP when the original name-bearer isn't sunk or vice versa or whatever the system currently is in WitP according to this confusing thread just doesn't make sense. Make the hulls available at the historic dates and give them their original names, just like in PacWar v3.1. Easy, least troublesome and not nearly as controversial as this respawn thing, IMO.

I agree, the respawn thing just invites gamey tricks and is totally unrealistic. We know what was done historically and this system could give us less than what happened.

Yes point taken, of course you are right about that Anyway its all moot to me since as an allied player I consider this respawning unrealistic cheat and accordingly will be parking any respawns on the westcoast for the duration.

Timjot, hasn't this thread proven that the "respawned" ships were ones thast were actually present in the war? If you don't use them, you will be short of the number of CVs that were historically present.

For those that want the 4 CV's will the editor allow them to be added? Also if I understand this right the Midway's are not in the game no matter how long the war lasts in game terms? Even if the FDR was commissioned in 10/45 and the Midway in 10/45? (same editor question on the midway's)

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Yes point taken, of course you are right about that Anyway its all moot to me since as an allied player I consider this respawning unrealistic cheat and accordingly will be parking any respawns on the westcoast for the duration.

Timjot, hasn't this thread proven that the "respawned" ships were ones thast were actually present in the war? If you don't use them, you will be short of the number of CVs that were historically present.

It proves that they represent the last 4 to be "commissioned" before the war ended. Three or which had not yet come operational before Japan surrendered. So I guess if the war last beyond August 45, I might take them out of mothballs but I doubt I will need to at that point.

OK, I finally figured out what the design team is doing. Historically 15 Essex class carriers reached Pearl Harbor before the end of the war, however CV 36 was three days out of PH enroute to the war zone when the war ended. The game uses 13, two of which never saw action but the design team is assumming the average loss of prewar carriers will be 2 hence you will have the 15 that actually made it to PH. The Essex that enters the game on 5/15/45 should represent CV 36 which actually got to PH on 6/19/45.

With the exception of the Essex, the 4 carriers that enter the game in 43 come in about the time that an Essex class actually arrived. Historically 2 arrived early in 44 that aren't represented in the game so if you lose 2 that get respawned in early 44 you will have the missing 2 represented. The problem is that the rest of the in game arrivals will arrive sooner than historically if you get 2 respawned in early 44. I guess it was a compromise for not knowing when you will actually lose a prewar carrier.

Two respawned carriers will give you the historically correct number, any more than that will give you an excess but the capability was certainly there to deliver those. I think I will modify the arival dates of all Essex class carriers to reflect histiory and deal with any respawned carriers as reserve until 45 when I will allow 2 of the respawns to enter the war zone at PH on 4/5/45 and 6/19/45.

Since this topic has bubbled back to the surface, this thread is being revived for those who may have missed it the first time....if you are upset by the prospect of the resurrection of hordes of US CVs, please read this thread thoughtfully. You will find that this provision in no way threatens to make the game unrealistic....

ORIGINAL: irrelevant
...You will find that this provision in no way threatens to make the game unrealistic....

I have to disagree. The thread gives very good reasons that it was not possible for the US to accelerate the building of CV beyond the actual building program since all shipyards were at their limits already. A straight sequence of new CV arrivals would be the best, I guess.

I have to disagree. The thread gives very good reasons that it was not possible for the US to accelerate the building of CV beyond the actual building program since all shipyards were at their limits already.

Did you read this whole thread? There is no acceleration. Please study this table carefully. Keep in mind that the carriers marked "replacement only" would only arrive 18 months after the ships they replace are sunk.

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Loking at the arrival dates for the Essex class in a slightly different way. The date in the second column is the date of the ship's initial arrival in the Pacific Theater, fully trained and with its air group, ready to commence operations:

Carrier_____________________IRL @ PH___________________Game arrival
CV 9 ESSEX_________________6/1/1943____________________1/15/1943
CV 10 YORKTOWN___________7/24/1943____________________replacement only
CV 16 LEXINGTON____________8/9/1943____________________replacement only
CV 17 BUNKER HILL__________10/1/1943____________________7/15/1943
CV 12 HORNET_____________11/29/1943____________________replacement only
CV 11 INTREPID_____________1/10/1944____________________8/15/1943
CV 18 WASP_________________4/4/1944____________________replaceent only
CV 19 HANCOCK_____________10/1/1944____________________7/15/1944
CV 13 FRANKLIN_____________6/15/1944____________________11/15/1943
CV 14 TICONDEROGA _________10/1/1944____________________5/15/1944
CV 20 BENNINGTON____________1/8/1945____________________5/15/1944
CV 15 RANDOLPH______________2/1/1945____________________8/15/1944
CV 38 SHANGRI-LA____________2/15/1945____________________9/15/1944
CV 31 BON HOMME RICHARD_____4/5/1945___________________10/15/1944
CV 36 ANTIETAM______________6/19/1945___________________11/15/1944
CV 21 BOXER__________________9/1/1945____________________5/15/1945
CV 39 LAKE CHAMPLAIN_________9/9/1945____________________2/15/1945

May be I misunderstood the table. Let's get into detail:

For this example, I assume the USN has only one CV to start with, the Yorktown. This is for simplicity only and shouldn't affect the reason behind this.


Case 1:
If the Yorktown gets lost (and it's the only lost CV since there aren't any other), the player will receive the following sequence of CVs as replacements/reinforcements:

CV9 ESSSEX__1/15/1943 (game dates)
CV 10 YORKTOWN__depending on date lost
CV17 BUNKER HILL__7/15/1943
CV 11 INTREPID__8/15/1943
etc...

The player has 4 CVs by 08/15/43 (the new Yorktown and thee new CVs).

Case 2:
If the original Yorktown (and all the other CVs) is still alive, the player would get

CV9 ESSSEX__1/15/1943
CV17 BUNKER HILL__7/15/1943
CV 11 INTREPID__8/15/1943
etc...

The player has 4 CVs, too, by 08/15/43 (the original Yorktown and the 3 new ones).

Is this correct so far? If so, in the first case the shipyards produced 4 CVs, in the second time they build 3. For me, there has been somekind of ship building acceleration in case number one.

Sometimes I get the feeling that posting on the forum is a game itself separate from actually playing WITP. Kind of a game within a game -- so to speak. It seems that some people get a bigger kick out of posting than playing. But, hey, whatever gets you through the night (or day).

Just an observation by a slightly puzzled onlooker.

Carry on.

CB