Page 1 of 5
turning off the rule
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:46 pm
by Taiyo
is there a way to turn off that rule that sends allied ships back after some 400/500 days if they have been sunk before 1942 (don't know the month[:(]) ? in game menu or in editor?
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:30 pm
by rogueusmc
That's not an option yet...maybe in the patch
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:47 pm
by mogami
Hi, Several things.
The ships do not come back. Other ships come in with same name but they are new class.
There are ships left out of OOB because they had a name of an existing ship. If you turn off these ships you will short the Allied player ships he actually had. (Does it make a difference if the USN has no new Lexington because it is not sunk but instead has a new Enterprise if that ship is lost?)
Japanese PC/MSW come back in same manner.
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:43 pm
by Taiyo
game manual says:
There are several instances in which replacements ships will be provided as reinforcements if a ship is sunk during the game. Replacement ships are generated if:
-An American CV is sunk prior to 1944 will be replaced by an Essex-class CV.
-An American or Australian CA that is sunk prior to 1944 will be replaced by a
Baltimore-class CA or a Cleveland-class CL. The replacement class is chosen at
random.
-A Minesweeper of any navy that is sunk will be replaced by a similar minesweeper.
Whenever a replacement ship is created, it will be placed in the reinforcement list and given an arrival time of around 550 days from the date the original ship was sunk.
(manual page 193)
Does this means that allied player can just take an Air combat TF, sail into Japanese teritory, do some damage, get his TF destroyed and sunk (TF would be mostli CA, CL and CV) and in about a year and a half he would get it back? If so, as allied you can go around making stupid mistakes with your task forces, but be revarded a brand new CV in couple of months? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get this rule!
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:51 pm
by pasternakski
Chr1st, does anybody ever bother to learn something about history and then read the previous forum posts on the subject before b1tching about the game design?
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:54 pm
by michaelm75au
The Allied player wont be rewarded in a couple of months. You are looking at a replacement in 550 days, ie about one and half year.[&:]
Also, he would have lost those original victory points for the sunk ships. CVs are not cheap from memory.[;)]
The rule tries to represent the large ship building/replacement capabilty available to the Allies.[;)]
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:56 pm
by Xargun
ORIGINAL: Taiyo
game manual says:
There are several instances in which replacements ships will be provided as reinforcements if a ship is sunk during the game. Replacement ships are generated if:
-An American CV is sunk prior to 1944 will be replaced by an Essex-class CV.
-An American or Australian CA that is sunk prior to 1944 will be replaced by a
Baltimore-class CA or a Cleveland-class CL. The replacement class is chosen at
random.
-A Minesweeper of any navy that is sunk will be replaced by a similar minesweeper.
Whenever a replacement ship is created, it will be placed in the reinforcement list and given an arrival time of around 550 days from the date the original ship was sunk.
(manual page 193)
Does this means that allied player can just take an Air combat TF, sail into Japanese teritory, do some damage, get his TF destroyed and sunk (TF would be mostli CA, CL and CV) and in about a year and a half he would get it back? If so, as allied you can go around making stupid mistakes with your task forces, but be revarded a brand new CV in couple of months? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get this rule!
Yes the allies can do this... Once... I believe you can only get a total of 4 free CVs this way... Plus, you will be giving the japanese playing over 2000 VPs for your stupidity... Each CV is worth about 400 VPs, plus 90 aircraft, plus the rest of the ships in the fleet... So if you throw away your 4 free CVs you will give the enemy right around 2000 VPs for free.... Don't throw them away... Cost the japanese for them.. EVen if they are sunk and the IJN CVs are only damaged its still a good deal... By the time the IJN CVs are repaired, you will have new CVs to play with...
Xargun
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:57 pm
by Taiyo
@pasternakski:
not bitching just asking for help. if that is forbidden on this forum then sorry didn't mean to. second: i just don't get why would any ship be replaced. history was the way it was. but in this game maybe we could be given an option to change some of it. Maybe someone made a huge mistake, didn't planed as he should have and got his TF destroyed. That happens in the war. That happens in the game. So that's why i was asking. With this rule allied player is entitled to more than his usual share of mistakes. And...mistakes made by Japan or by Germany cost them loosing the war, or loosing the war in a certain period of time!
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:59 pm
by Taiyo
@xargun: is there really a limit to it? because i didn't saw that in the manual!? ty [&o]
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:17 pm
by SeaWolF K
Taiyo,
If the game represented all the allied ships that saw service in the pacific I would agree with you. However the game does not include Lexington II, Yorktown II, Hornet II and Wasp II that were Historical Essex class carriers that were renamed for fallen 1942 sister ships. The replace rule is trying to represent what happened historically. ( Personally I wish the historical replacements were in the game with the II after there name and then there would be no need for the respawn rule)
SeaWolF
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:21 pm
by Taiyo
@seawolf:
yes, that wuld be better than this. or if 4 of them survive the 42-43 period tere would be no need for the 'name'-II CV's, or if not the II' can come as replacement. maybe a better solution in my opinion.
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:39 pm
by Skyros
Even better would be that the CV's were set up historically with the original names which I believe are known.
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:44 pm
by SeaWolF K
ORIGINAL: Skyros
Even better would be that the CV's were set up historically with the original names which I believe are known.
The only problem is that some of the names were reused on latter Hull numbers.
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:58 pm
by freeboy
Limit is four cv per the manual
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:09 am
by mogami
Hi the USN can lose 4 CV but it can never throw even 1 away. If they don't lose four to Japan they lose 4 actual Essex class CV that did fight in the war. (but they give or deny Japan 2000 VP depending) There is no plus side to this rule for the USN. (since if they got only historical ships and didn't lose any they would have 4 more. They only get 4 Essex that actually fought if they lose 4 other CV.)
If you really examine this rule it's not that the USN should lose 4 it's the IJN should not sink four. (because the replacements are better) As the IJN you want to damage CV not sink them. (and put the USN player in the weird position of having to scuttle a CV that he might otherwise save )[X(]
After turn 1100 it is ok to sink as many USN CV as you can.
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:36 am
by siRkid
Have you given any thought as to how long 550 turns realy is? I've been playing the AI and making as many turns a day as I can and I've only done about 150 turns. The US player will be in a world of hurt if he is short on carriers for 550 turns.
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:47 am
by mogami
Hi, Yes as the USN you do not want to lose a CV before you have strong LBA at all your vital bases. It is ok to lose a CV or have one damaged if you sink a Japanese CV in exchange.
Under any set of circumstance (respawn or no respawn rule) The USN should always trade CV 1 for 1. (But it is hard to arrange these 1 for 1 trades)
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:47 am
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: Taiyo
is there a way to turn off that rule that sends allied ships back after some 400/500 days if they have been sunk before 1942 (don't know the month[:(]) ? in game menu or in editor?
Uh...oh! I promise to keep my trap shut. [:D] I believe Lemurs is making a sister mod to his full scenario which includes all USN ships omitted because of the name duplication/respawning feature. When you play it, institute a house rule where all respawned ships must remain in port and unused by the players. MSWs are not a biggie though.
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:54 am
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: Mogami
(Does it make a difference if the USN has no new Lexington because it is not sunk but instead has a new Enterprise if that ship is lost?)
Of course it does because the original hull was named Cabot and was available early in 1943. Because of the spawn rule, any hulls historically named after ships lost early in the Pacific have been scrapped from the OOB.
RE: turning off the rule
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:24 am
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi the USN can lose 4 CV but it can never throw even 1 away. If they don't lose four to Japan they lose 4 actual Essex class CV that did fight in the war. (but they give or deny Japan 2000 VP depending) There is no plus side to this rule for the USN. (since if they got only historical ships and didn't lose any they would have 4 more. They only get 4 Essex that actually fought if they lose 4 other CV.)
If you really examine this rule it's not that the USN should lose 4 it's the IJN should not sink four. (because the replacements are better) As the IJN you want to damage CV not sink them. (and put the USN player in the weird position of having to scuttle a CV that he might otherwise save )[X(]
After turn 1100 it is ok to sink as many USN CV as you can.
It's a lost cause, MOGAMI. No hard-core Japanese Fan-Boy is ever going to believe than
the "re-spawning rule" is anything but a plot against his fantasies. These people are so
out of touch with reality they keep thinking that Japan SHOULD be able to win the war
for real (not just in game terms). They also believe in the HISTORY CHANNEL. And
probably in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny as well.