Why the CV replacement rule is not worth worrying about

[tsimmonds]

When I first learned of this rule I too was not happy about it. But the more I look at it the less of a problem it is for me. Here's why:

IRL, the USN received 17 Essex class in the Pacific by VJ day. Five of these arrived in 1943, seven in 1944, and five in 1945.

In the game, should the USN suffer losses exactly per history, they would receive 17 Essex class in the Pacific by VJ day. Assuming the replacements take 550 days, six of them would arrive in 1943 (3 in Nov and Dec), eight in 1944, and three in 1945. Okay, so there is a little bit of acceleration, but IMO not enough to make any difference.

In the game, should the USN suffer no losses whatsoever in prewar CVs, they would receive 13 Essex class, 3 in 43, 7 in 44, and 3 in 45. This seems reasonable.

In the game, should the USN suffer historical losses plus lose Enterprise and Saratoga on 1/1/42, they would receive 19 Essex class, 8 in 43 (again, 3 in Nov and Dec), 8 in 44, and 3 in 45. Again, I don't see anything here that I can't accept.

I really don't understand what makes people so unhappy about this. IMHO it is a fair and realistic way of dealing with two issues:
1) compensating for a early-war disaster by accelerating CV construction, which the US industrial machine would surely have found a way to do, and
2) discouraging an unrealistic but otherwise perfectly viable allied strategy of sitting back and waiting until a huge fleet of CVs has been amassed. If you sit back and wait, you get less toys to play with. The benefit given to the allied player of the first point is offset by the benefit afforded to the Japanese player by the second.

Comments?

[Mr.Frag]

Yep, never understood why people get so excited over this one ... if the usa felt pressured, they would have not done the Tico conversions at all, not pulled a couple aside for future R&D and just spat them out like mad. From keel to commisioning could be done in 1.25 years. The 500-600 day range we have is actually longer then they could have made them in if they ever really considered Japan to be a real threat to their way of life as opposed to some anoyance they needed to deal with at some point in the future. [:D]

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Yep, never understood why people get so excited over this one ... if the usa felt pressured, they would have not done the Tico conversions at all, not pulled a couple aside for future R&D and just spat them out like mad. From keel to commisioning could be done in 1.25 years. The 500-600 day range we have is actually longer then they could have made them in if they ever really considered Japan to be a real threat to their way of life as opposed to some anoyance they needed to deal with at some point in the future. [:D]

Fine! But just give us midget submarines to deal with them!!! [8|] [:D] [:'(]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

When I first learned of this rule I too was not happy about it. But the more I look at it the less of a problem it is for me. Here's why:

IRL, the USN received 17 Essex class in the Pacific by VJ day. Five of these arrived in 1943, seven in 1944, and five in 1945.

In the game, should the USN suffer losses exactly per history, they would receive 17 Essex class in the Pacific by VJ day. Assuming the replacements take 550 days, six of them would arrive in 1943 (3 in Nov and Dec), eight in 1944, and three in 1945. Okay, so there is a little bit of acceleration, but IMO not enough to make any difference.

In the game, should the USN suffer no losses whatsoever in prewar CVs, they would receive 13 Essex class, 3 in 43, 7 in 44, and 3 in 45. This seems reasonable.

In the game, should the USN suffer historical losses plus lose Enterprise and Saratoga on 1/1/42, they would receive 19 Essex class, 8 in 43 (again, 3 in Nov and Dec), 8 in 44, and 3 in 45. Again, I don't see anything here that I can't accept.

I really don't understand what makes people so unhappy about this. IMHO it is a fair and realistic way of dealing with two issues:
1) compensating for a early-war disaster by accelerating CV construction, which the US industrial machine would surely have found a way to do, and
2) discouraging an unrealistic but otherwise perfectly viable allied strategy of sitting back and waiting until a huge fleet of CVs has been amassed. If you sit back and wait, you get less toys to play with. The benefit given to the allied player of the first point is offset by the benefit afforded to the Japanese player by the second.

Comments?

Ooooh, I wanna comment but I've said my piece. [:D]

[tsimmonds]

Ooooh, I wanna comment but I've said my piece.

I know, you want the historical arrivals, regardless of what happens. But what then would stop an allied player from just holing up at Pearl until 12/43, when he can come roaring out with 14CVs and 8CVLs and sweep across to the Marianas ahead of schedule?

[Mr.Frag]

I know, you want the historical arrivals, regardless of what happens. But what then would stop an allied player from just holing up at Pearl until 12/43, when he can come roaring out with 14CVs and 8CVLs and sweep across to the Marianas ahead of schedule?

SHHH!!!!!! Don't give away my plans!

[Mr.Frag]

Fine! But just give us midget submarines to deal with them!!!

Sure, got nothing against midget subs as long as they keep a regular sub busy to transport them to the hex you want to use them in and only get 1 shot.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Yep, never understood why people get so excited over this one ... if the usa felt pressured, they would have not done the Tico conversions at all, not pulled a couple aside for future R&D and just spat them out like mad. From keel to commisioning could be done in 1.25 years. The 500-600 day range we have is actually longer then they could have made them in if they ever really considered Japan to be a real threat to their way of life as opposed to some anoyance they needed to deal with at some point in the future. [:D]

Yep. Japan and her little people were such a none issue, despite Pearl Harbor, that CVs 10, 12, 16, 18 (all early reinforcement Essexes planned and laid down prewar, I might add), and all other ships which duplicate names (hmmm) were scrapped on the ways in a display of arrogant dismissal of the fishhead soup eaters.

"Hell, they're just little yellow midgets with coke bottle glasses who can't fight thar way out of a take out bag. They can only make cheap knockoffs of Yankee knowhow. Darn, ah bet if we scrapped a bunchah ships that are building reet now, that'd learn 'em a thing or two abaout messin' with this here, how you say, arsehole of demolition!"

But, as Japan dumfounded the western powers by kicking their sorry asses around the Pacific for six months and sank a whack of Pre War naval vessels, arrogance and ignorance was summarily kicked out of Dodge and immediately, new keels "were once again laid down in record time" (using the well known maufacturing process known as the "just add water and stir" method developed by J.W. Freshie).

And, too further confuse the little yellow buggers, "We'll name 'em after them boats that got themselves blow'd out the water! Hell, they'll never be able to figure that out!"

I was gonna keep quiet but all the explanations in support of this feature needed a foil.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Ooooh, I wanna comment but I've said my piece.

I know, you want the historical arrivals, regardless of what happens. But what then would stop an allied player from just holing up at Pearl until 12/43, when he can come roaring out with 14CVs and 8CVLs and sweep across to the Marianas ahead of schedule?

Hmmm, I don't know...linking Political Points to supply.resurce points and geographical locations instead of pumping out free PPs per turn. Whatever can be modelled which makes the defence/acquisition of territory/communications as politically and strategically important as they were historically.

Problem is, anything can be gamed to some degree.

[vonmoltke]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I know, you want the historical arrivals, regardless of what happens. But what then would stop an allied player from just holing up at Pearl until 12/43, when he can come roaring out with 14CVs and 8CVLs and sweep across to the Marianas ahead of schedule?

A Japanese victory on points in 6/43? [:D]

Anyway, while I am satisfied with the implementation as-is, I still have the same problem with it that Ron does. 17 ships were completed before the war ended; 17 would have been completed regardless of the number of pre-war carriers lost. I don't think the Ticonderoga modifications made much of a dent in the production rate, since the first of those ships were laid down in the same month as the last of the Essex class ships.

[moses]

I think people just get annoyed when you sink two carriers on Dec 10 and your opponent sends you the e-mail that two new carriers have just shown up on his arrival list. It seems to diminish your accomplishment in some way. Also it seems to make the allied player overly free in risking his ships knowing that they will be replaced so there appears to be no cost in losing them.

It just doesn't feel right somehow. Here's an easy way to make people feel better. Give out some extra VP's for allied ships sunk prior to say April 42. Only applies to ships to be replaced.

Had the US lost its three starting carriers in the first months it really would have been a disaster. It would have reinforced the impression of JP superiority and enhance the existing post PH panic and disorder in the US. More important it would almost certainly resulted in forces being shifted from the Atlantic theater which was at a critical stage. This is worth a few hundred extra VP's.

This change might also cause the allied player to be a little more cautious early on.

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Yep, never understood why people get so excited over this one ... if the usa felt pressured, they would have not done the Tico conversions at all, not pulled a couple aside for future R&D and just spat them out like mad. From keel to commisioning could be done in 1.25 years. The 500-600 day range we have is actually longer then they could have made them in if they ever really considered Japan to be a real threat to their way of life as opposed to some anoyance they needed to deal with at some point in the future. [:D]

Yep. Japan and her little people were such a none issue, despite Pearl Harbor, that CVs 10, 12, 16, 18 (all early reinforcement Essexes planned and laid down prewar, I might add), and all other ships which duplicate names (hmmm) were scrapped on the ways in a display of arrogant dismissal of the fishhead soup eaters.

"Hell, they're just little yellow midgets with coke bottle glasses who can't fight thar way out of a take out bag. They can only make cheap knockoffs of Yankee knowhow. Darn, ah bet if we scrapped a bunchah ships that are building reet now, that'd learn 'em a thing or two abaout messin' with this here, how you say, arsehole of demolition!"

But, as Japan dumfounded the western powers by kicking their sorry asses around the Pacific for six months and sank a whack of Pre War naval vessels, arrogance and ignorance was summarily kicked out of Dodge and immediately, new keels "were once again laid down in record time" (using the well known maufacturing process known as the "just add water and stir" method developed by J.W. Freshie).

And, too further confuse the little yellow buggers, "We'll name 'em after them boats that got themselves blow'd out the water! Hell, they'll never be able to figure that out!"

I was gonna keep quiet but all the explanations in support of this feature needed a foil.

But that is exactly the point Ron. That is pretty much exactly what the USA thought of them. Had they actually had any fear whatsoever of Japan, the USA would have ramped up their production levels back when Japan refused to be party to the Naval Accords years before the war and started th war with double the number of BB's and CV's and 50 times the number of aircraft they had. [:D]

The only conclusion one can draw from pre-war posturing was that the USA clearly thought them to be laughable and simply thought that some sanctions would make those "silly little yellow guys" knuckle under with nothing else needed.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Fine! But just give us midget submarines to deal with them!!!

Sure, got nothing against midget subs as long as they keep a regular sub busy to transport them to the hex you want to use them in and only get 1 shot.

hehe it was just a joke. [;)]

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: moses

I think people just get annoyed when you sink two carriers on Dec 10 and your opponent sends you the e-mail that two new carriers have just shown up on his arrival list. It seems to diminish your accomplishment in some way. Also it seems to make the allied player overly free in risking his ships knowing that they will be replaced so there appears to be no cost in losing them.

It just doesn't feel right somehow. Here's an easy way to make people feel better. Give out some extra VP's for allied ships sunk prior to say April 42. Only applies to ships to be replaced.

Had the US lost its three starting carriers in the first months it really would have been a disaster. It would have reinforced the impression of JP superiority and enhance the existing post PH panic and disorder in the US. More important it would almost certainly resulted in forces being shifted from the Atlantic theater which was at a critical stage. This is worth a few hundred extra VP's.

This change might also cause the allied player to be a little more cautious early on.

very good points here. this is exactly how i feel. it just make me feel like so what i sunk a ship "poof" here is the replacement!!!
it takes away any feeling of accomplishment!!!

[mongo]

I know they are on the wish list for midgets and kaiten. I'm
not sure how the game would model he midgies, but I would think Kaiten could be a variation of the ohka code?

Not to change the subject though [;)]

Frag is right about how Japan's military was perceived before the war. VERY few officers ever thought they were going to be a problem. Even the ones who had long term ties to the Far East had no idea. It wasn't until some of the Marines came back from late 30's China that the word started to get out. At that time it was still dismissed (as was most of the China Marine experience).

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: vonmoltke

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I know, you want the historical arrivals, regardless of what happens. But what then would stop an allied player from just holing up at Pearl until 12/43, when he can come roaring out with 14CVs and 8CVLs and sweep across to the Marianas ahead of schedule?

A Japanese victory on points in 6/43? [:D]


Anyway, while I am satisfied with the implementation as-is, I still have the same problem with it that Ron does. 17 ships were completed before the war ended; 17 would have been completed regardless of the number of pre-war carriers lost. I don't think the Ticonderoga modifications made much of a dent in the production rate, since the first of those ships were laid down in the same month as the last of the Essex class ships.

This ismore to counter Frag's contention.

Just regard the Ticonderoga mods as AA upgrades during the building process, because THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE. They do not represent an inherent reduction in the urgency and need to defeat Japan, or that the USN has enough ships to do it with. They represent the desire to provide the best AA defense for their ships (and politically huge...the welfare of their crews, something not modelled). Why put all that effort into the massive amounts of work needed to drastically alter prewar designed ships if they believed they had more than enough? (have you looked at CA 24 Pensacola 1945 refit? Massive alterations for kamikaze survivability). They would not have bothered with all these old ships if they were not concerned about casualties and were satisfied with the preponderance of their numerical and and technical superiority.

If what the proponents of American naval production might is true, why would they just not leave all the old ships out of harms way and simply accellerate the new vessels in the dockyards? Why, because they did not believe it was sufficient and quite possibly, not something which could be sped up faster than the dizzy pace the shipyards were already setting. Proof...US submarine preponderance. This is the one area where the US military leaders believed they had enough new build subs to retire the S-Boat, V-Boats, P-Boats and Salmon/Saury Class boats in 43-44. All other ships went into harms way even in 44-45.

[mongo]

No Navy can leave old ships out of harm's way for one reason: public opinion.

No naval commander can ever come even CLOSE to being accused of cowardice because it could spell disaster for the whole service.

If the Navy had just sailed around while Army and Marine troops were fighting, flying and dying, the public (and Congress) would have roasted admirals alive on the National Mall.

That's why we have so many of the problems with military operations then and today: everyone wants a piece of the op because it puts them in the limelight - and that's what drives funding. Public/Congressional opinion. Funding makes the world go round.

[Mr.Frag]

Massive alterations for kamikaze survivability

Ron, not valid at all ... this was completely unknown factor until it actually happened.

The Tico changes were more about improving the CV based on experiences with the Essex's in 43, stuff in '45 is what drove the *next* classes coupled with innovations in aircraft design resulting in required design changes.

The USN while having ships not up to '45 standards were not really aware of '45 standards in '43 when they could have made an impact. The war ended at the close of '43 when the USN finally had enough CV's *AND* more importantly the *BRAINS* to adopt proper CV tactics. Prior to that point in time, they pretty much threw their CV's away as they didn't seem to understand how to use them effectively.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

When I first learned of this rule I too was not happy about it. But the more I look at it the less of a problem it is for me. Here's why:

IRL, the USN received 17 Essex class in the Pacific by VJ day. Five of these arrived in 1943, seven in 1944, and five in 1945.

In the game, should the USN suffer losses exactly per history, they would receive 17 Essex class in the Pacific by VJ day. Assuming the replacements take 550 days, six of them would arrive in 1943 (3 in Nov and Dec), eight in 1944, and three in 1945. Okay, so there is a little bit of acceleration, but IMO not enough to make any difference.

In the game, should the USN suffer no losses whatsoever in prewar CVs, they would receive 13 Essex class, 3 in 43, 7 in 44, and 3 in 45. This seems reasonable.

In the game, should the USN suffer historical losses plus lose Enterprise and Saratoga on 1/1/42, they would receive 19 Essex class, 8 in 43 (again, 3 in Nov and Dec), 8 in 44, and 3 in 45. Again, I don't see anything here that I can't accept.

I really don't understand what makes people so unhappy about this. IMHO it is a fair and realistic way of dealing with two issues:
1) compensating for a early-war disaster by accelerating CV construction, which the US industrial machine would surely have found a way to do, and
2) discouraging an unrealistic but otherwise perfectly viable allied strategy of sitting back and waiting until a huge fleet of CVs has been amassed. If you sit back and wait, you get less toys to play with. The benefit given to the allied player of the first point is offset by the benefit afforded to the Japanese player by the second.

Comments?

You may need to revise your list. For one thing it includes all USN CA's and CL's too. The manual states the OZ CA's (and therefore probaby CL's too) covered by this thing.

While the USA "might" have revved up and built to replace those imaginary losses, the reaction to the losses is just as imaginary as the losses. Since it plays into fantasy, has anybody bothered to consider what effects the very same conditions should have on Japan? Should they automatically get Midway or PH for example? Should the JA AI automatically shift strategy to a more conservative or aggressive stance? Would JA morale skyrocket? Would some of the Allied nation's morale plummet? Would, and this is maybe the most direct possibility, the Japanese training of pilots become a greater emphasis? Afterall, if fuel is the problem for the historic JA in training pilots (apart from any sheer incomptetence there may had been) and a lot of carriers/ca's/cl's for the US are knocked out, isn't it normal to assume that with less fuel threatened that the pilots get better trained? Would the Japanese be any less determined to train their pilots than the US/OZ shipbuilders to replace ships? The sinking of CV's/CA's/CL's shouldn't just be a one-way street you know.[:-]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: mongo

I know they are on the wish list for midgets and kaiten. I'm
not sure how the game would model he midgies, but I would think Kaiten could be a variation of the ohka code?

Not to change the subject though [;)]

Frag is right about how Japan's military was perceived before the war. VERY few officers ever thought they were going to be a problem. Even the ones who had long term ties to the Far East had no idea. It wasn't until some of the Marines came back from late 30's China that the word started to get out. At that time it was still dismissed (as was most of the China Marine experience).

No kidding the western powers thought that Japan was a non issue...before the war. It has been covered in depth. But they (USA with regard this debate) believed the overall threat to be severe enough to have initiated the massive 1940 and 41 naval estimates. Germany and fascism can't be ignored in these arguements. These estimates included four early Essexes and a host of lesser vessels eliminated from the database because of the name issue. Does anyone think that if the USN did not rename ships after those lost that a respawning feature would be included? EG. If CVs 10, 12, 16, and 18 were named Quebec, Brandywine, King's Mountain, Monmouth instead of Yorktown II, Hornet II, Lexington II and Wasp II, would they not be in the database as legitimate reinforcements, or would it be assumed that because Japan was not taken as a serious threat, these early build Essexes would not have been laid down.