US CV "rebirth" rule

[Onime No Kyo]

This is to help out the 100K...umm...mostly. [:D]

I got so curious about the pros and cons of the USN CV renaming rule that I picked up Andrew Faltum's book on Essex-class CVs. As far as I can tell, Matrix was right on with that rule. All the CVs that were "renamed" saw action, while the names that they replaced and went to subsequent ones did not. The only "retread" name that ever got in the shooting war was the "Bonnie Dick" Bon Homme Richard CV-31, and that only in the very end of the war, by which time it shouldnt matter at all. The other 3 (Kearsarge, Cabot and Oriskany) did not get into the war at all. The name Cabot was not even recycled on an Essex.

So it seems to me that it was a very good, historically accurate rule to have 4 CVs renamed as Essexes. The only question I have regards the timing. It seems that all of them were renamed before the hull was launched. So what happens if I lose a the Yorktown after 1/21/43 (the date Bon Homme Richard aka Yorktown II was launched)? Do I get CV10 as BHR and CV11 (Intrepid) gets renamed as Yorktown II?

[Falke]

You always get all the essex CVs that where not renamed. You only get a renamed essex if you lose the original, thus at the end of the game you could have between 4 essex's less(don't lose any original CV's) and 3 or 4 More than Historically (lose all early CV's)

[Twotribes]

It has already been shown in one thread that the US had the shipyard space to make the extra essex if they needed to. I for one will never play someone that wants to limit the US in ships, since in the end, the fact is the US could have produced more than it did.

[Onime No Kyo]

In other words you want 50 of them because the US had the hypothetical yard space?[&:]

I'm talking about a fixed number of CVs 4 of which get renamed (if you lose 4 originals) on a fixed timescale.

[fbastos]

This is why I think this feature should be an on/off toggle. Every month or so the discussion is reopened. While I understand the arguments in favor and against it, this issue is a recurring discussion, therefore a controversy.

Due to the controversial nature of it, let's just make it a toggle.

You don't even need a nice happy toggle on the Options screen, which would require artwork and real estate on the screen. Just put it on an INI file:

[GameOptions]
UsRespawn=0

Voila, problem solved.

F.

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: fbastos

This is why I think this feature should be an on/off toggle. Every month or so the discussion is reopened. While I understand the arguments in favor and against it, this issue is a recurring discussion, therefore a controversy.

Due to the controversial nature of it, let's just make it a toggle.

You don't even need a nice happy toggle on the Options screen, which would require artwork and real estate on the screen. Just put it on an INI file:

[GameOptions]
UsRespawn=0

Voila, problem solved.

F.

Or you could just handle this with a house rule - just leave those carriers sitting in San Francisco. Voila, no programming needed!

[RevRick]

If I read the listings in the editor correctly, the Essex class ships which were renamed are not listed in that group. If Mars happens to smile beneficently upon the USN and through some circumstance the USN looses none of the original six CV's, the four which were renamed do not enter the action at all, or so it appears.

[pasternakski]

That's what's wrong, Rick. This has always been a shrill Japanese fanboy effort to minimize the number of US CVs that come into the game.

I wouldn't care if it were really true that "by the late stages of the war, it doesn't matter, the Allies have plenty of carriers." The problem is that this game allows the Japanese player to apply resources far more efficiently than was possible historically. The element out there that maintains "historicity be d@mned, the Japanese ought to have a good chance to win the war not just the game" seems to have prevailed again.

I wish we could all play the game accoridng to its victory conditions and not fantasize about how we could have won the war despite history.

Oh, well. Just give me the patch and I'll shut up.

[RevRick]

Let's take this into account....

Yorktown:
The fourth Yorktown (CV-10) was laid down on 1 December 1941 at Newport News, Va., by the Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co. as Bon Homme Richard; renamed Yorktown on 26 September 1942; launched on 21 January 1943, sponsored by Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt; and commissioned on 15 April 1943 at the Norfolk Navy Yard, Capt. Joseph J. ("Jocko") Clark in command.

Yorktown remained in the Norfolk area until 21 May at which time she got underway for shakedown training in the vicinity of Trinidad. She returned to Norfolk on 17 June and began post-shakedown availability. The aircraft carrier completed repairs on 1 July and began air operations out of Norfolk until the 6th. On the latter day, she exited Chesapeake Bay on her way to the Pacific Ocean. She transited the Panama Canal on 11 July and departed Balboa on the 12th. The warship arrived in Pearl Harbor on 24 July and began a month of exercises in the Hawaiian Islands. On 22 August, she stood out of Pearl Harbor, bound for her first combat of the war. Her task force, TF 15, arrived at the launching point about 128 miles from Marcus Island early on the morning of 31 August. She spent most of that day launching fighter and bomber strikes on Marcus Island before beginning the retirement to Hawaii that evening. The aircraft carrier reentered Pearl Harbor on 7 September and remained there for two days.

Hornet:
The eighth Hornet (CV-12) was launched 30 August 1943 by the Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., Newport News, Va.; sponsored by Mrs. Frank M. Knox, wife of the Secretary of the Navy; and commissioned 29 November 1943, Captain Miles M. Browni ng in command.

Hornet conducted shakedown training off Bermuda before departing Norfolk 14 February 1944 to join the Fast Carrier Task Force

Wasp:
The ninth Wasp (CV-18) was laid down as Oriskany on 18 March 1942 at Quincy, Mass., by the Bethlehem Steel Co.; renamed Wasp on 13 November 1942; launched on 17 August 1943; sponsored by Miss Julia M. Walsh, the sister of Senator Davi d I. Walsh of Massachusetts and commissioned on 24 November 1943, Capt. Clifton A. F. Sprague in command.

Lexington:
The fifth Lexington (CV-16) was laid down as Cabot 15 July 1941 by Bethlehem Steel Co., Quincy, Mass., renamed Lexington 16 June 1942, launched 23 September 1942; sponsored by Mrs. Theodore D. Robinson; and commissioned 17 February 19 43, Capt. Felix B. Stump in command.

After Caribbean shakedown and yard work at Boston, Lexington sailed for Pacific action via the Panama Canal, arriving Pearl Harbor 9 August 1943.

Add these to the mix, and you can easily see why Yamamoto knew that the IJN had to strike in 1941/early 42, and then run wild. If not, by the end of 1942, the USN could easily look forward to up to ten CV in commission, and probably 12. Not a pretty picture, but.... that was what the IJN faced.

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: fbastos

This is why I think this feature should be an on/off toggle. Every month or so the discussion is reopened. While I understand the arguments in favor and against it, this issue is a recurring discussion, therefore a controversy.

Due to the controversial nature of it, let's just make it a toggle.

You don't even need a nice happy toggle on the Options screen, which would require artwork and real estate on the screen. Just put it on an INI file:

[GameOptions]
UsRespawn=0

Voila, problem solved.

F.

If there's a toggle, then you lose the 4 hulls in question anyway. Those hulls would have to be added into the database before the game starts.

[fbastos]

Yeap, -IF- they decide to add a toggle (which doesn't exist now), then some good soul (do I hear Lemurs?) would have to add the missing hulls to the OOB - not only the CVs, but also the CAs.

F.

[Onime No Kyo]

That's just it....

To me it seems that there are some incontrovertible historical truths. The one that concerns me here is that 14 Essex-class ships participated in combat operations in the PTO before Japanese surrender. Another, Antietam CV-36, was present in Tokyo bay during the surrender but not in combat operations. I could name the 14 if anyone so desires and provide as detailed a history as I can on what and when they actually did. To me it doesnt matter one bit whether one carrier was called Bon Homme Richard or Lexington, what matters is that there was an Essex ship in combat from date A to date B.

What people, call them Japanese Fanboys or what have you, seem to miss is that the rule does not make USN CVs "respawn". It simply changes the names. The bottom line is, if there were 15 Essex-class ships in the pacific in September 45, that is what the game should give you.

If anyone really wants to split hairs, the last Essex availible in the game is the Lake Champlain CV39 which was launched in Nov. 44. If the game is really meant to go well into 1946, the USN should get at least 5 more Essexes, all of which were launched and commissioned on or before May 46.

In my opinion, saying that there should be a toggle just because its "controvercial" is completely missing the point (with all due respect FB). It is simply ignoring real, historical facts and pandering to people who want to treat this game like some sort of reincarnation of Starcraft where one side has advantages and proportional disadvantages vis a vis any other side. This was simply not true! I have absolutely no intention of going into the murky depths of "coulda, woulda and shoulda". I simply state, and provide proof of the fact that by the time Japan historically surrendered, the USN had 25(!!!!!) Essex ships afloat. The game has already been tweaked so that the USN ceceives only 13 (call it half!!!) Essexes.

I do not want to start a discusion of whatever happened to the other 12. I, and I'm sure most who hold the same views on the issue as I do, will happily agree that 13 is plenty. But in my opinion, trying to change this rule, toggle it or what have you, is tantamount to sweeping history under the rug. In a forum such as this, where we have daily arguments over 1 or 2 points of maneuverability of a particular aircraft, that would be the height of folly.

[Admiral DadMan]

Ok, let's work with some numbers.

Keel-laying to Commissioning took an average of 18 months. U.S. shipyards often "Launched" a ship when it could be tied up to a pier to be completed. Just because a ship was so launched, that does not mean it was in any way fit for combat or even operational.

After Commissioning, there was a "shakedown" period that lasted anywhere from 4 to 6 months. Shakedown worked out the bugs and identified areas to repair back at the dockyard. At worst, it took 24 months (2 years) for an Essex Class carrier to be available in the Pacific Ocean Area (POA).

For a ship to be available to be in the game, it must reach San Francisco (SF) by 1 Jan 46, which means it should Commission no later than 1 Aug 45.

Using histories from DANFS (Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships), I come up with the following:

17 Essex Class were commissioned before 1 Aug 45.

14 Essex Class saw actual service in POA. The last ship Commissioned on 26 Nov 44, and arrived POA Apr 45. There were less than those 14 on station due to damage and refits at the time of V-J day. 3 more would have seen service by the end of 1945.

Even if you use the 24 month yardstick, there would only be 19 hulls laid down before 1 Jan 44.

There are 13 Essex Class in the Long Game, 2 of which were too late for historical combat, but would have seen service had the war lasted until 1946. It seems that the game design assumes that the Allied Player will lose 4-6 carriers, and this "respawning" will fill out ship production as it actually happened. In PacWar, I really didn't mind it, as I could go into the database and re-name a ship if I so wished. Can't do that with WitP.

We might as well stop bitching about it. It's here, it's staying, and I'm writing my own mod scenario to deal with it. [:D]

[pasternakski]

What makes you think that American production of CVs depended on how many were lost? If the pre-WWII CVs had not been lost, new ships would just have made the USN that much stronger. I don't care if you called them Freddy Kruger, Yuski Mush, or Late for Dinner, they would have been built, launched, finished, trained, equipped with air groups, and committed to the war, if the war was still being fought.

[Onime No Kyo]

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Ok, let's work with some numbers.

Keel-laying to Commissioning took an average of 18 months. U.S. shipyards often "Launched" a ship when it could be tied up to a pier to be completed. Just because a ship was so launched, that does not mean it was in any way fit for combat or even operational.

After Commissioning, there was a "shakedown" period that lasted anywhere from 4 to 6 months. Shakedown worked out the bugs and identified areas to repair back at the dockyard. At worst, it took 24 months (2 years) for an Essex Class carrier to be available in the Pacific Ocean Area (POA).

For a ship to be available to be in the game, it must reach San Francisco (SF) by 1 Jan 46, which means it should Commission no later than 1 Aug 45.

Using histories from DANFS (Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships), I come up with the following:

17 Essex Class were commissioned before 1 Aug 45.

14 Essex Class saw actual service in POA. The last ship Commissioned on 26 Nov 44, and arrived POA Apr 45. There were less than those 14 on station due to damage and refits at the time of V-J day. 3 more would have seen service by the end of 1945.

Even if you use the 24 month yardstick, there would only be 19 hulls laid down before 1 Jan 44.

There are 13 Essex Class in the Long Game, 2 of which were too late for historical combat, but would have seen service had the war lasted until 1946. It seems that the game design assumes that the Allied Player will lose 4-6 carriers, and this "respawning" will fill out ship production as it actually happened. In PacWar, I really didn't mind it, as I could go into the database and re-name a ship if I so wished. Can't do that with WitP.

We might as well stop bitching about it. It's here, it's staying, and I'm writing my own mod scenario to deal with it. [:D]

Your math works in theory, but in actuality there is quite a bit of leeway from this. According to the data in Faltum, CV31 "Bon Homme Richard" the last-completed Essex to see combat was launched 4/43 and commissioned 11/44...and still managed to make PTO in time for the raids of 45.

CV36 "Antietam" the last Essex to make it to the PTO before Japanese surrender was launched 8/44 and commissioned 1/45. If you look at these dates, it becomes quite likely that if there was a pressing need, a CV could be launched, shaken down and post-SD'd in a matter of 4-5 months, including transit from the East coast.

In fact, then there was a pressing need, CVs could be pressed into service even faster. The Essex herself was comissioned exactly 5 months to the day after being launched (7/31/42-12/31/42). The next ship in line, CV10 Yorktown II was comissioned less than 4 months after being launched (1/21/43-4/15/43), the next one after that CV11 "Intrepid"...slightly over 4 months (4/26/43-8/16/43). So by these numbers, even if 6 months is to be added for shakedown and such, we are looking at a year from launching to full combat readiness at the outside extreme. In fact in the game itself can be used as a reference, the Essex becomes availible very ealry in 43, about 3 months after commission.

Naturally, I would agree that as the war situation became less pressing, they starded taking more time to get things right, but even the Bon Homme Richard went from launching to commission in 7 months (4/44-11/44) and was in action fast enough to participate in the summer raids on Japan. That would mean that even at the most cautious and undel least amounts of pressure, a CV in wartime went from launching to action in slightly more than a year.

Thus, by these numbers, the USN should have 19 Essexes "availiable" for combat and one more either on the way through the Panama canal or in late stages of shakedown and post-SD service.

Still, what I am trying to say here is that CVs dont respawn. The absolute number of Essexes remains the same. You get 13 Essexes in the game no matter what. A rose by any other name smells as sweet.

I think that one of us is misunderstanding something. you say that "the game design assumes that the Allied Player will lose 4-6 carriers, and this "respawning" will fill out ship production as it actually happened". But as I understand it, it doesnt matter one bit. 13 Essexes is 13 Essexes, under different names perhaps.

If I am not understanding something please clarify it. But from what I know, there will still be 13 Essex-class ships in the game even if you lose every single one of the pre-war CVs.

[Falke]

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

I think that one of us is misunderstanding something. you say that "the game design assumes that the Allied Player will lose 4-6 carriers, and this "respawning" will fill out ship production as it actually happened". But as I understand it, it doesnt matter one bit. 13 Essexes is 13 Essexes, under different names perhaps.

If I am not understanding something please clarify it. But from what I know, there will still be 13 Essex-class ships in the game even if you lose every single one of the pre-war CVs.

The number of essex-class ships in game depends on the loss of pre-war CVs.You always get all thoose that where not renamed plus one more Essex II for each of the pre-war CVs if they are lost. With this method you can end up with more or less Essex-class CV's in game.

This method best represents why the US did not build more- Economics + they had enough for the job.

PS- Japanese Ship production is fixed,they can at best accelerate some ships.Even if the building queue is empty and there is spare capacity they can not build any more ships.

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

What makes you think that American production of CVs depended on how many were lost? If the pre-WWII CVs had not been lost, new ships would just have made the USN that much stronger. I don't care if you called them Freddy Kruger, Yuski Mush, or Late for Dinner, they would have been built, launched, finished, trained, equipped with air groups, and committed to the war, if the war was still being fought.

I'm talking about the mechanics of the game as it relates to American CV production. WWII shipbuilding was not necessarily a knee-jerk reaction to losses. Re-naming CVs already on the ways for losses during the war has permeated itself into our game as "re-spawining", which I am not enamoured of. If WitP's Allied shipbuilding were simply straightforward without the re-naming/re-spawning tom foolery, there would be those grousing about the names of the carriers that arrived.

I think that this was an attempt to kill two birds with one stone, and missed both.

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

Thus, by these numbers, the USN should have 19 Essexes "availiable" for combat and one more either on the way through the Panama canal or in late stages of shakedown and post-SD service.

Still, what I am trying to say here is that CVs dont respawn. The absolute number of Essexes remains the same. You get 13 Essexes in the game no matter what. A rose by any other name smells as sweet.

I think that one of us is misunderstanding something. you say that "the game design assumes that the Allied Player will lose 4-6 carriers, and this "respawning" will fill out ship production as it actually happened". But as I understand it, it doesnt matter one bit. 13 Essexes is 13 Essexes, under different names perhaps.

If I am not understanding something please clarify it. But from what I know, there will still be 13 Essex-class ships in the game even if you lose every single one of the pre-war CVs.

Historically, you're getting my point.

The game mechanics cloud the issue.

15.1.1 Automatic Ship Replacements

There are several instances in which replacement 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.

Open the Scenario 15 database and select the Ships Tab, then go to slot 3002 which is where the US CVs start. Slots 3002 through 3020 are populated with carrier names (a total of 19). 9 of those ships are eligible for that rule should they be sunk (the 6 pre-war and 3 Essex class). Should the Allied player be unlucky or be born under a bad star, he could theoretically see 22 Essex Class CVs enter the game.

Some see this as license to play way too aggressively with American CVs early in the game. What bothers me is the historical accuracy taking a hit for game-play sake.

[TIMJOT]

If I am not understanding something please clarify it. But from what I know, there will still be 13 Essex-class ships in the game even if you lose every single one of the pre-war CVs.

[/quote]


With all due respect Onime No Kyo, the issue has never been about the number of Essex Hulls available but rather when they become available. Specifically 550 days after the sinking of original named CV. This means that for every CV sunk in the first 6 months of the war the player gets an "EARLY" Essex in 1943. For a potential total 9 Essex in 1943. This was well beyond US shipbuilding capacity in 1942.

A simple historic situation to demonstrate why the current system doesnt work. In the game if you lose the Lexington on the exact same historic date May 10 1942 you get 5 Essex CVs in 43 instead of the historic 4. If you happen to say lose the Yorktown on that same day as well, you get 6 Essex CVs in 43. Historically none of the Essex CVs that became operational in 43 were result of any of the 1942 loses.

Regards

[hithere]

I think that it is hard to say what would have happened if the US lost bad at midway. You have to think that Midway took alot of pressure off the US. If the US lost all three carriers (a very realistic outcome), reason would say that they would have put down more carriers. I guess that would depend on whether you believe that the US had the capacity too, which I do.

Also, I believe that they US did complete 7 Essex carriers for combat in 1943, so I believe that this is realistic.

Essex (CV-9) , Bunker Hill (CV-17) , Yorktown (CV-10) , Lexington (CV-16), Intrepid, (CV-11), Hornet (CV-12) , Wasp (CV-18).

I am at work now so I do not have access to any books, but this is the web site that I looked at. Some sites due vary alittle on the date, but I tried to name the one's that had a chance for combat in 1943. I have acually seen some places say that the Franklin (CV-13) was ready in DEC 1943, but, this site does not support that and it had no way to make it to combat.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/cv/cv9cl.htm

I've said it several times and I'll say it now (my opinion). Japan had no material chance of winning this war. The only way is not modeled in the game, and that is if the allies gave in. If any sim. has them winning, esp in a protracted war into 1946, I believe it is flawed.

I am not taking anything away from Japan, that they lasted as long as they did is a statement into itself. the US only dedicated something like 2/5 of it's production and manpower to the pacific (now this one was off the top of my head, someone can correct me)

by the way... you have to kill sometime at work, the above parent site is good, it is a U.S. Navy site

http://www.history.navy.mil

i'm sure that this has been posted on these forums somewhere...but here it is again [:D]