sunken and respawned ships

[zuikaku]

If ,for instance, Enterprise get sunked, after 18 months a new CV respawns. under what name? Enterprise? Or Enterprise 2? And what is with sunked ships list? Is then original Enterprise remowed from it then? Hope not. But, if respawned Enterprise also sunks. Are then there 2 Enterprises on the sunked ships list? I've complicated this, didn't I?

[Speedysteve]

Hi,

This is what I KNOW:

The re-spawned carrier will be Enterprise NOT Enterprise 2

On the sunk ships list it will show Enterprise as being sunk.

This is what I DON'T KNOW:

Not sure what happens if both are sunk.

Steven

[zuikaku]

I wonder, since I don't want the game to collapse if I sink respawned CV. And, I don't want to get points for one CV if I've sunken two of them...

[String]

ORIGINAL: zuikaku

I wonder, since I don't want the game to collapse if I sink respawned CV. And, I don't want to get points for one CV if I've sunken two of them...

you worry too much [:'(]

The new enterprise will be an essex class carrier. The old enterprise will remain in the sunk ships list, and if the new one gets sunk it will be sunk and will not respawn. Only up to 4 pre war carriers respawn.

[zuikaku]

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: zuikaku

I wonder, since I don't want the game to collapse if I sink respawned CV. And, I don't want to get points for one CV if I've sunken two of them...

you worry too much [:'(]

The new enterprise will be an essex class carrier. The old enterprise will remain in the sunk ships list, and if the new one gets sunk it will be sunk and will not respawn. Only up to 4 pre war carriers respawn.

Essex class or not, it's name will be Enterprise! So, than, it should be 2 Enterprises on list of sunken ships (when I sink it)?

[Speedysteve]

Sounds right based on what String says. Keep in mind they will have the same name but will be of a different CLASS in the database so will appear as different ships on the sunk ship list with a different value of VP's........

[Kadrin]

You can have a third Enterprise join the sunken ship list aswell, she's over in India, usually Colombo, the light cruiser HMS Enterprise.

[Bradley7735]

More than 4 carriers will respawn if more than 4 are sunk prior to 1/1/44.

You can sink all 6 prewar US carriers and they will all respawn. The only limiting factors are: Needs to be a US CV. And the CV needs to sink prior to 1/1/44. (yes, USS Essex will respawn if you sink it in 1943) The same rule works for US CA's and CL's. And HMAS CA's.

[Ron Saueracker]

There will never be a USS Yorktown (CV 10), USS Hornet (CV 12), USS Lexington (CV 16) or USS Wasp (CV 18) as these are assumed to never have been built, and are not compensated for either unless one of the four historically sunk USN CVs gets sunk in the game. This applies to any other cruiser as well. Unfortunately, DDs and SSs are eliminated from the OOB because they were historically renamed after a sunk ship are gone...period.

[timtom]

And it doesn't become any less hmm...odd considering all four CV's were laid down before their predecessors were lost, two so before the war even broke out.

If the Navy Department or whoever was responsible for naming ships had decided to stick with the original names (Oriskany, Kearsarge, Cabot, Bon Homme Richard), I wouldn't be writing this as presumably 2By3 would have represented them just like any other ships, two of which incidentally would (and did & should) arrive mid-43, a date that only the suicidal Allied players among us will be able to match.

To my mind, representing the actual force levels available at any given time rather outweighs the need for getting the name right. Name one the USS Oleg Mastruko for all I care.

[moses]

Its a very strange rule which was debated quite sharply a ways back.

I suppose it gives the allies a greater incentive to fight and risk their carriers early on. Maybe it can be justified by assuming the added carriers may have gone to the altlantic if nothing is sunk in the Pacific.

But OK.

[Mike Solli]

One of my opponents has been very conservative so far (late Mar 42). I thought he wa hiding his CVs on the West Coast. I sent both of my KBs (6 CVs and 2 CVLs) on an excursion to kill some merchant shipping. He had a couple of CVs protecting an area he thought I may attack and the battle ended up sinking his 2 CVs to moderate damage to 2 of my CVs and heavy damage to 2 CVs (their fate is still in doubt). Anyway, even if you are a conservative Allied player for the beginning of the war, eventually the Japanese player will strike a nerve and you will defend. He didn't have to attack me. I had no clue his CVs were there. He took a chance he thought he might win. By the way, he had no idea 4 of my carriers were there either. Basically, it was a big blunder.

[Bradley7735]

But, what about the 30 odd missing DD's, DM's, APD's and DE's? or the half dozen or so missing SS's?

It's a crappy function of the game in almost any example. The very best result you can hope for is if the allied player plays as historical as he possibly can (and the Japanese player needs to as well). If the allied player does the turtle method, then allied production decides to not produce about 50 ships. If the allied player decides to attack with everything he has and loses a crap load of ships, then allied production shifts into overtime and produces hulls that were most likely not achievable in real life.

No matter what outcome plays out, timing of very very important ships is all screwed up. I think they tried to adjust some ships to arrive earlier in 43, but I dont know for sure. Either way, it would have solved a lot of issues if they'd just added a "2" at the end of the ships names.

Give me USS Seawolf 2!!!!!!

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: timtom

And it doesn't become any less hmm...odd considering all four CV's were laid down before their predecessors were lost, two so before the war even broke out.

If the Navy Department or whoever was responsible for naming ships had decided to stick with the original names (Oriskany, Kearsarge, Cabot, Bon Homme Richard), I wouldn't be writing this as presumably 2By3 would have represented them just like any other ships, two of which incidentally would (and did & should) arrive mid-43, a date that only the suicidal Allied players among us will be able to match.

To my mind, representing the actual force levels available at any given time rather outweighs the need for getting the name right. Name one the USS Oleg Mastruko for all I care.

Don't bother quoting facts. If they don't conform to "accepted WITP theory" the facts will get changed (or ignored). The Americans are cheated out of 4 carriers that would have arrived. Period. The ONLY question about their arrival is what name they would have had.

The original names of these four carriers were used by later Essex and Ticonderoga class carriers by the way.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: moses

Its a very strange rule which was debated quite sharply a ways back.

I suppose it gives the allies a greater incentive to fight and risk their carriers early on. Maybe it can be justified by assuming the added carriers may have gone to the altlantic if nothing is sunk in the Pacific.

But OK.

I'm not at home right now and can't try to locate the information but I saw something in my History of United States Naval Operations in World War II where it had a listing of where ships were needed and would basically go and carriers were just about all slated for Pacific duty and not Atlantic - except if they were escort carriers.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: dereck

ORIGINAL: moses

Its a very strange rule which was debated quite sharply a ways back.

I suppose it gives the allies a greater incentive to fight and risk their carriers early on. Maybe it can be justified by assuming the added carriers may have gone to the altlantic if nothing is sunk in the Pacific.

But OK.

I'm not at home right now and can't try to locate the information but I saw something in my History of United States Naval Operations in World War II where it had a listing of where ships were needed and would basically go and carriers were just about all slated for Pacific duty and not Atlantic - except if they were escort carriers.

I know Wasp served in the Atlantic in early 42. And Ranger served there most of the war. Other than that, I can not think of a single US carrier doing anything in the Atlantic (other than CVE's or CV's doing training)

I could be missing something, though.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

ORIGINAL: dereck

ORIGINAL: moses

Its a very strange rule which was debated quite sharply a ways back.

I suppose it gives the allies a greater incentive to fight and risk their carriers early on. Maybe it can be justified by assuming the added carriers may have gone to the altlantic if nothing is sunk in the Pacific.

But OK.

I'm not at home right now and can't try to locate the information but I saw something in my History of United States Naval Operations in World War II where it had a listing of where ships were needed and would basically go and carriers were just about all slated for Pacific duty and not Atlantic - except if they were escort carriers.

I know Wasp served in the Atlantic in early 42. And Ranger served there most of the war. Other than that, I can not think of a single US carrier doing anything in the Atlantic (other than CVE's or CV's doing training)

I could be missing something, though.

I believe even the Ranger ended up in the Pacific eventually. She didn't see combat but I believe she was there along the west coast basically as a training carrier.

[Andrew Brown]

I prefer to consider the "respawn" as not representing ships being sent to the Atlantic, but as the US shipbuilding program adjusting itself according to need. I personally like the feature.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Don't forget about hordes of Essexes and other ships which in stock arrives way too early...

[509th Bob]

According to the books I've read, the re-naming of a sunken CV started out as a military intelligence trick to be used on the Japanese. The Japanese thought they had sunk the Lexington at Coral Sea (as they, in fact, did). The US decided to name a new CV after the Lexington to confuse the Japanese into thinking that perhaps they didn't sink the Lexington, after all.

As for other USN ships bearing their names forward, I can't say - except that I think it was a shame to stop the practice. I'd rather see a Nimitz-class CVN bearing the name Hornet, Wasp, Saratoga, etc., than Truman or Reagan (both of whom I think were great Presidents, BTW).