US CV replacements

[greycat]

The manual states that any US carrier sunk before 1944 will be replaced by an Essex class CV. But shouldn't the US get these carriers anyway, as they had all been laid down before their namesakes were sunk? For example, CV10 was laid down in Dec '41 as Bonhomme Richard but was renamed Yorktown after the orginal was sunk at Midway. (There is a similar rule for cruisers)

[DuckofTindalos]

Oh Goodie, another "US gets cheated out of four carriers". Yippie...[8|]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Oh Goodie, another "US gets cheated out of four carriers". Yippie...[8|]

Like they don't get enough to start with. If you put them end to end you could walk across the flight decks from San Fran to Brisbane and never get your feet yet... [8|]

To answer the OPs Q, I do remember us having this discussion a while back and if memory serves me correctly they opted to have a toggle to either allow respawn or not.

[bradfordkay]

It is well known that if you don't lose the carriers historically lost, then you will be cheated out of four Essex class CVs. Ain't nothing that's going to change that, so we have to learn to live with it.

I do understand that this will not be the case in AE.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Oh Goodie, another "US gets cheated out of four carriers". Yippie...[8|]

Like they don't get enough to start with. If you put them end to end you could walk across the flight decks from San Fran to Brisbane and never get your feet yet... [8|]

To answer the OPs Q, I do remember us having this discussion a while back and if memory serves me correctly they opted to have a toggle to either allow respawn or not.

Maybe you are right about the US having enough carriers, but if the need to invade Japan's HI arises, you will need every carrier available to overwhelm the kamikaze threat.

[CV Zuikaku]

Kamikazes are unable to penetrate a CAP of a single 4CV TF in 1944/45. In stock WITP.
Played 1945 scenario 2 times, and 4 more or less US CVs doesn't matter at all.
Hope they will in AE.

[Q-Ball]

If the Allied player loses his carriers, though, it is the Japanese player that is "cheated" vs. history. You can end up getting extra Essex's that weren't available. And the respawn rule on cruisers is especially generous to the Allies; I have sunk over 20 cruisers in my game that have all respawned, way more than historical.

And Zuikaku is right on the Kamis; they are not as deadly as IRL.

All this changes, apparently, in AE.

[greycat]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Oh Goodie, another "US gets cheated out of four carriers". Yippie...[8|]

Like they don't get enough to start with. If you put them end to end you could walk across the flight decks from San Fran to Brisbane and never get your feet yet... [8|]

To answer the OPs Q, I do remember us having this discussion a while back and if memory serves me correctly they opted to have a toggle to either allow respawn or not.

Agreed, the US has plenty of carriers (and everything else!), but it would be nice if one could preserve the early carriers and have the new ones appear with their original names.

[greycat]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

If the Allied player loses his carriers, though, it is the Japanese player that is "cheated" vs. history. You can end up getting extra Essex's that weren't available. And the respawn rule on cruisers is especially generous to the Allies; I have sunk over 20 cruisers in my game that have all respawned, way more than historical.

And Zuikaku is right on the Kamis; they are not as deadly as IRL.

All this changes, apparently, in AE.

Good point, I had not thought about it from that angle. The game would be better off without the replacement rule altogether; the allies built as many new ships as they could, not usually in response to specific losses.

[Shark7]

The problem isn't the number of carriers, the problem is the respawn which allows the allied player to be completely careless with his forces cause no matter how many a japanese player sinks the allied player is going to get his carriers and cruisers replaced. That's why I like the AE approach to it, toggle by player. We can turn off the clone factory and it changes how the allied player has to play the game, they have to act more like Nimitz in trying to keep their assets in one piece.

I don't care if the allied player gets the 4 that became replacement as the IIs. They should be in the queue to begin with and the allied player should get them no matter what.

[Yamato hugger]

Lets see, in this game I sank:
Lexington (1), Lexington II (2), Saratoga (3), Yorktown (4), Enterprise (5), Enterprise II (6), Hornet (7), Wasp (8), Wasp II (9), and Essex (10)

He got 6 bonus Essex carriers (above and beyond the 4). Dont know how many bonus cruisers he got. Oh boo hoo for the allies getting "cheated".

[bradfordkay]

Which is another reason for not liking respawn... However, there are those of us who do not throw our carriers away like yesterday's garbage and so have been screwed out of some carriers (unless I lose more in the next month, I will have recieved three fewer Essex class carriers than the USN had in WW2). 

[castor troy]

I have never heard of an Allied player who is willing to risk his carriers just because he will get new ones two years later... most of the PBEMs don´t even exist that long to see the carriers respawn, so this argument is pretty pathetic in my oppinion.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: greycat

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Oh Goodie, another "US gets cheated out of four carriers". Yippie...[8|]

Like they don't get enough to start with. If you put them end to end you could walk across the flight decks from San Fran to Brisbane and never get your feet yet... [8|]

To answer the OPs Q, I do remember us having this discussion a while back and if memory serves me correctly they opted to have a toggle to either allow respawn or not.

Agreed, the US has plenty of carriers (and everything else!), but it would be nice if one could preserve the early carriers and have the new ones appear with their original names.

I have to agree totally with Greycat. I for one would like to see a USS Reprisal join my fleet.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

I have never heard of an Allied player who is willing to risk his carriers just because he will get new ones two years later... most of the PBEMs don´t even exist that long to see the carriers respawn, so this argument is pretty pathetic in my oppinion.

In my case it wasn't intentional, but I managed to lose 3 of the 4 to doing careless attacks. And yes, they were careless, I would never have done what I did had I been playing Japan, but I knew as US I'd get them back so I rolled the dice when I shouldn't have. I was still upset my gamble didnt' work, but with no respawn I wouldn't have placed the bet in the first place.

So yeah it can affect how people play the game. I'm sure no one sends Lex in as a torpedo absorber intentionally, but in my case I'm more willing to take chances I probably shouldn't.

[Boozecamp]

If unlimited respawns of CVs/CAs/CLs are gamey, that expansive ships sunk list just begs the old question:

How many of those carriers, and for that matter, the rest of doubtless massive amount of ships sunk by 18 inch Type 91 Torps were sunk by Betty/Nell groups that were historically untrained in torpedo attacks?

[Yamato hugger]

In my case, none. They were all carrier to carrier kills. I lost a few as well, but I usually got off damaged. This was actually an interesting game. Wasnt the typical carriers enmasse that you usually see in a 2 player game. Was 1 or 2 carriers here and 1 or 2 there. Dont think either one of us had more than 2 carriers in a TF and no more than 2 carrier TFs in an area. I pretty much kept my CVLs and CVEs in the Java / Sumatra / Perth area, the main 6 scattered between Midway and Guadalcanal, and the other 2 between Midway and the Aleutians.

[Barb]

Maybe whole torpedo carrying thing should be experience related instead of torpedo tracking as in AE or defailt as in WITP.

[Yamato hugger]

To quote Will Smith from "Men in Black": "You were stung as a child weren't ypu?". [;)]

Believe me, if anything AE has gone overboard in the other direction. Torpedoes can only be carried by planes from a carrier (that has enough on board) or an airfield within command range of an air HQ that has enough torpedoes in its pool.

The first time you play allies and fly your Swordfish and Wiraways to northern Malaya to attack the landing forces there, you will see what I mean.

[Shark7]

As the AE team reported, having torpedo's available is no longer an automatic thing. I have a feeling you'll be using bombs much, much more from what they've described in previous threads.