RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 5:37:38 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

I always thought of "re-spawn" as just a bunch of garbage. Let's take things away from one side that they actually built..., and only give it back "x" number of months after they lose something else (instead of when it actually arrived). And for an excuse, we'll say we couldn't program a simple name substitution.

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 241

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 5:50:43 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I always thought of "re-spawn" as just a bunch of garbage. Let's take things away from one side that they actually built..., and only give it back "x" number of months after they lose something else (instead of when it actually arrived). And for an excuse, we'll say we couldn't program a simple name substitution.

I agree, but until they give the Allies a reason to stand and fight early on I can see how respawn would be a passive incentive for that to happen. As it stands now if you took away respawn there is no incentive for the Allies to not run and hide...afterall they'll get their ships anyway....at least with respawn there is some incentive to go and use them instead of hiding.

IMO a better solution to get the Allies to stand and fight would be to base VP on a daily accumulation basis, so the longer you hold a place the more points you acquire towards your VP Total...but for now that is outside the scope....

And respawn is somewhat outside the topic of the thread.

< Message edited by treespider -- 1/17/2008 5:52:03 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 242

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 6:03:37 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

I follow your reasoning about respawn being to motivate the Allied player, but I just don't buy it as a theory. If it's just about victory conditions then the Allied player would still avoid battle unless the IJ player was getting enough VP's from base conquests and non-carrier battle Allied losses. The only reason that rings true is for play balance in the later game - if the Allied did well enough to, say, only lose one carrier then they would have 3 more carriers available with non-respawn than with respawn.

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 243

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 6:04:22 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

I actually wish there was a SIMPLER production system. I think it's far more complicated than it needs to be. You can constrain, or ramp up production without making so complicated.

I mean, saying resources produce 1.25 supplies, and oil producing 3 fuel, and when you mix them together (but only if you have 2x of each) you can run heavy industry. But then it's only consumed at a rate of 1x, and then you build engines then you build airframes and then you recyle when your pool is more than 10x your replacement requirement. And 10 resources per manpower center which then if you have industry, supply and an amrment factory you can produce a squad. Geezus merry and joey. I'm a fairly bright person, but that's just an enima.

Any chance things will get SIMPLIER?

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 244

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 6:16:53 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

As it stands now if you took away respawn there is no incentive for the Allies to not run and hide...

Well, if the USN pilot EXPs were raised to where they should be, the strike coordination penalty eliminated, and the zero bonus would be eliminated, then there'd be a reason for the Allies to see a point in resisting. IRL the USN knew that they could take on the IJN ftf in a one for one fight and win or draw.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 245

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 6:19:15 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

What if it's just that the IJ player is over-aggressive and gets hurt without the Allied player losing CV's?

Anyway, I don't see how you can gain. Re-spawn only gives you those ships if you lost other ones. If you lose less than the respawn number, then you lose the ships that historically were delivered. I think the motivation for including respawn during the initial design was just for play balance.

Well, the Saipan class was designed and built to cover combat losses in the Independence class. It just wasn't accelerated like the early Essex class ships and the Independence class itself.

However, the decision to build them was made in the summer of 1941 and the decision to accelerate them in January 1941, before any American battle losses. See this site. Eleven Essex class carriers were ordered pre-war, two in December 1941, and ten in August 1942. Nine were ordered after that. No evidence of 'respawning'.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 246

Respawn - 1/17/2008 6:31:05 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

Nimitz knew the fleet was coming, but he didn't cut and run (although he sent the BBs to the rear). He used raiding and patrol operations to stretch the Japanese until late 1943 when he went on the offensive. Any USN player who retreats to California with his carriers should find the Japanese player much more solid and ready to fend off his attack. The attrition during 1942-43 was what made the Japanese vulnerable in early 1944.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 247

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 6:45:10 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Any USN player who retreats to California with his carriers should find the Japanese player much more solid and ready to fend off his attack. The attrition during 1942-43 was what made the Japanese vulnerable in early 1944.

I'm not sure how solid the IJN could have been. They had plenty of time to prepare interior positions and it didn't really help much at all. I do agree that the attrition really whittled away at the IJN. I think the point there is that the attrition ratio needs to be somewhere near historic levels, rather than the strange product that I've seen in WitP AARs. Unless one is going to REQUIRE the Japanese player to do something stupid, like send 4 CVs with inadequate recon to pull double-duty assaulting a heavily fortified atoll and at the same time hope that they can manage the USN if the latter happens to show up with a couple CVs, you *CAN'T* penalize the Allies for falling back in the face of overwhelming odds UNLESS the attrition hurts the Japanese as much as the Allies (which was the historic case, at least for aircraft combat).

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 248

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 6:56:36 PM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

As I see it, a lot of incentive is there for the Allied player to try to do as much damage to KB as possible relatively early on. Sink a few Japanese carriers and if you lose some of your own, you get them back, the Japanese don't. Again, for some Allied players who miraculously get through most of the war without losing any carriers it IS a shot in the foot. But for others who play more aggressively early on, putting their carriers at risk in order to maybe get a lucky strike at KB, then respawn is not NECESSARILY a bad thing. Granted a lot of players know better than to throw their carriers at KB TOO EARLY on. However, historically the US carriers sailed into harms way facing a superior enemy on many occasions and lost 4 CVs early on in the war because of it. All I'm saying is that CV and CA respawn are not NECESSARILY bad things for the Allies as they are often made out to be. There can be good and bad points to it for Allies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

What if it's just that the IJ player is over-aggressive and gets hurt without the Allied player losing CV's?

Anyway, I don't see how you can gain. Re-spawn only gives you those ships if you lost other ones. If you lose less than the respawn number, then you lose the ships that historically were delivered. I think the motivation for including respawn during the initial design was just for play balance.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 249

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 7:01:47 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

But for others who play more aggressively early on, putting their carriers at risk in order to maybe get a lucky strike at KB

It should not require a lucky strike. Just an airstrike. All evidence from the actual wars shows that the USN was as capable of hurting the IJN in carrier combat as the IJN was of hurting the USN. Indeed, since USN carriers sank (in 1942) 6 Japanese carriers, to KB sinking ONE (Hornet), the evidence suggests that the USN was substantially better at that sort of thing, in carrier air combat.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 1/17/2008 7:04:09 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 250

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 7:05:08 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

Midway happened the way it did because of some weaknesses of the Japanese tactics, but Nimitz fought at Midway because he had a reasonable expectation of at least a draw. Our fleet had the advantage of being behind a scouting base and so being able to attack effectively first. I've seen the same tactic used against Red in North Atlantic scenarios (in my professional life, not gamer) with similar outcomes.

_____________________________

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 251

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 7:07:55 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Midway happened the way it did because of some weaknesses of the Japanese tactics, but Nimitz fought at Midway because he had a reasonable expectation of at least a draw.

Nimitz orderd Spruance to fight at Midway because Nimitz had a reasonable expectation of a win. A "draw" was his "reasonable bottom line."

quote:

Our fleet had the advantage of being behind a scouting base and so being able to attack effectively first.

True, but the Yorktown and Lexington had no such advantage at Coral Sea and lost the Lex to a damage control error while sinking a Japanese CV, badly damaging Shokaku, and gutting Zuikaku's air complement for relatively minor USN aircrew losses. If "attrition" is supposed to be attractive to the Allied player in WitP, then the attrition should be favorable to the Allied player (at least by historical standards).

quote:

I've seen the same tactic used against Red in North Atlantic scenarios (in my professional life, not gamer) with similar outcomes

And it's very undesrtandable. In many ways, the IJN problem at Midway was the "rope-a-dope" effect.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 1/17/2008 7:13:07 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 252

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 7:08:11 PM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

But for others who play more aggressively early on, putting their carriers at risk in order to maybe get a lucky strike at KB

It should not require a lucky strike. Just an airstrike. All evidence from the actual wars shows that the USN was as capable of hurting the IJN in carrier combat as the IJN was of hurting the USN. Indeed, since USN carriers sank (in 1942) 6 Japanese carriers, to KB sinking ONE (Hornet), the evidence suggests that the USN was substantially better at that sort of thing, in carrier air combat.

That's another matter altogether. I didn't say that it should or should not be a condition of "luck". I'm merely pointing out that CV respawn is not necessarily a shot in the foot for Allies.

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 253

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 7:21:37 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

I'm merely pointing out that CV respawn is not necessarily a shot in the foot for Allies.

Well, I think that Ron's point is that objectively it is a shot in the foot, because unless the USN does "historically or worse" in early war combat, then the USN does not get reinforcements that it historically received. Moreover, if the IJN player doesn't play the way the real IJN played it, or if the attrition model in the early going substantially favors the Japanese (which in real life was not the case), then there is no reason to demand that the Allied player be "aggressive" in resisting. In 1942 the real USN waited for the IJN to overextend and then made the IJN pay heavily for it. WitP as it stands lacks any substantial short-term risk to Japanese overextension. If it did model that risk, you wouldn't regularly see the Japanese player seizing New Caledonia, Port Moresby, Johnston Isl, or points in Northern Australia, Ceylon, or India. Because when they tried it they'd run a very high risk of being overtasked trying to deal with LBA and then losing most of KB to enemy carrier strikes.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 1/17/2008 7:25:40 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 254

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 7:33:50 PM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

I'm merely pointing out that CV respawn is not necessarily a shot in the foot for Allies.

Well, I think that Ron's point is that objectively it is a shot in the foot, because unless the USN does "historically or worse" in early war combat, then the USN does not get reinforcements that it historically received. Moreover, if the IJN player doesn't play the way the real IJN played it, or if the attrition model in the early going substantially favors the Japanese (which in real life was not the case), then there is no reason to demand that the Allied player be "aggressive" in resisting. In 1942 the real USN waited for the IJN to overextend and then made the IJN pay heavily for it. WitP as it stands lacks any substantial short-term risk to Japanese overextension. If it did, you wouldn't regularly see the Japanese player seizing New Caledonia, Port Moresby, Johnston Isl, or points in Northern Australia, Ceylon, or India. Because when they tried it they'd run a very high risk of being overtasked trying to deal with LBA and then losing most of KB to enemy carrier strikes.

What do you mean by "objectively" here? It's a shot in the foot in some circumstances and not others. You could look at it in a way that the US must only do historically or worse to benefit or you could look at it that the US is not really allowed to do much worse because if they completely screw up and lose all their carriers early, they get them back. You can word it one way or the other. You still come out with the fact that under some circumstances it hurts the Allies and under others it benefits them. It looks to me like it behooves the Allied player to play more aggressively if he is going to get his carriers back.

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 255

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 7:52:22 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
That's another matter altogether. I didn't say that it should or should not be a condition of "luck". I'm merely pointing out that CV respawn is not necessarily a shot in the foot for Allies.

Wrong. No matter what the allies do, they lose almost all of their 1943 CV�s. If they get everything sunk very early in 42 (Jan-Mar), the CV�s don�t show up till the end of 43 or in early 44.

Respawns take about 500-600 days give or take and that is simply ludicrous. As I posted in post 672 in the naval thread, here�s the missing hulls and their historical arrival dates:

CV-10 Yorktown laid down 1 Dec 41, commissioned Apr 1943
CV-12 Hornet laid down 3 Aug 42, commissioned Nov 1943
CV-16 Lexington laid down 15 Jul 41, commissioned Feb 1943
CV-18 Wasp laid down 18 Mar 42, commissioned Nov 1943

As you can see the allies should get 2 Essex class CV�s in earl 43, but no matter what they do they lose that early power. Most early CV battles in game take place in late 42 after the July upgrades, so in most games the allies get only one CV in 1943 (the Essex).

That gives Japan an extra year of carrier dominance they shouldn�t have in a realistic simulation. It was done for balance reasons pure and simple and no matter what happens the allies get shot in the foot.

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 1/17/2008 7:54:31 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 256

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 8:05:16 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

Respawn has no basis in history.

_____________________________

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 257

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 8:09:05 PM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

Wrong. No matter what the allies do, they lose almost all of their 1943 CV�s. If they get everything sunk very early in 42 (Jan-Mar), the CV�s don�t show up till the end of 43 or in early 44.

Respawns take about 500-600 days give or take and that is simply ludicrous. As I posted in post 672 in the naval thread, here�s the missing hulls and their historical arrival dates:

CV-10 Yorktown laid down 1 Dec 41, commissioned Apr 1943
CV-12 Hornet laid down 3 Aug 42, commissioned Nov 1943
CV-16 Lexington laid down 15 Jul 41, commissioned Feb 1943
CV-18 Wasp laid down 18 Mar 42, commissioned Nov 1943

As you can see the allies should get 2 Essex class CV�s in earl 43, but no matter what they do they lose that early power. Most early CV battles in game take place in late 42 after the July upgrades, so in most games the allies get only one CV in 1943 (the Essex).

That gives Japan an extra year of carrier dominance they shouldn�t have in a realistic simulation. It was done for balance reasons pure and simple and no matter what happens the allies get shot in the foot.

Jim

Hmmm. Looks like you may be right. Looks like I was wrong. I change my position in that case. It looks like the Allies do objectively suffer from "respawn".

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 258

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 8:19:53 PM

okami

Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
That's another matter altogether. I didn't say that it should or should not be a condition of "luck". I'm merely pointing out that CV respawn is not necessarily a shot in the foot for Allies.

Wrong. No matter what the allies do, they lose almost all of their 1943 CV�s. If they get everything sunk very early in 42 (Jan-Mar), the CV�s don�t show up till the end of 43 or in early 44.

Respawns take about 500-600 days give or take and that is simply ludicrous. As I posted in post 672 in the naval thread, here�s the missing hulls and their historical arrival dates:

CV-10 Yorktown laid down 1 Dec 41, commissioned Apr 1943
CV-12 Hornet laid down 3 Aug 42, commissioned Nov 1943
CV-16 Lexington laid down 15 Jul 41, commissioned Feb 1943
CV-18 Wasp laid down 18 Mar 42, commissioned Nov 1943

As you can see the allies should get 2 Essex class CV�s in earl 43, but no matter what they do they lose that early power. Most early CV battles in game take place in late 42 after the July upgrades, so in most games the allies get only one CV in 1943 (the Essex).

That gives Japan an extra year of carrier dominance they shouldn�t have in a realistic simulation. It was done for balance reasons pure and simple and no matter what happens the allies get shot in the foot.

Jim

Before you get irritated by what I am about to say.... I hate respawn and I only play the Japanese. Ok qualifiers out of the way. There is one advantage to respawn and I find it a humourous one. With respawn there is less ships for the Japanese to sink at anyone time and thus less VP's to gain.

_____________________________

"Square peg, round hole? No problem. Malet please.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 259

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 8:31:30 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

There is one advantage to respawn and I find it a humourous one. With respawn there is less ships for the Japanese to sink at anyone time and thus less VP's to gain.

Stated another way, the only early war limiting factor in IJN vps is the number of allied ships in the game available to run down and sink. That sort of strategic "reality" has absolutely no resemblance to the actual war. And people complain because the Allied player often runs and hides? Jeesh!

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 260

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 8:34:46 PM

okami

Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

There is one advantage to respawn and I find it a humourous one. With respawn there is less ships for the Japanese to sink at anyone time and thus less VP's to gain.

Stated another way, the only early war limiting factor in IJN vps is the number of allied ships in the game available to run down and sink. That sort of strategic "reality" has absolutely no resemblance to the actual war. And people complain because the Allied player often runs and hides? Jeesh!

Don't get me wrong I agree with you it is still humourous. But then again I could have a sick sense of humour.

_____________________________

"Square peg, round hole? No problem. Malet please.

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 261

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 8:37:28 PM

okami

Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline

I will say there is one thing the game should have respawn for. Ground units and air units. Why is a slot destroyed if the unit is destroyed? Wouldn't the nation in question just rebuild the unit if it could? This would go a long way to stopping ahistorical game play that is based on saving these units from destruction.

_____________________________

"Square peg, round hole? No problem. Malet please.

(in reply to okami)

Post #: 262

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 8:41:23 PM

FeurerKrieg

Posts: 3397
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline

No respawn for carriers is the way to go in my opinion. I really don't understand why respawn was put in, in the first place.

As far as LCU respawn - have to be careful with that. Many units IRL were disbanded, but that doesn't happen at all in game. So by 1945 there are already too many LCUs in existence, and respawning LCU's would make that worse.

Now if we want to put in disbanding dates for LCUs...

_____________________________

Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net, copyright John Meeks

(in reply to okami)

Post #: 263

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 9:04:39 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

Now if we want to put in disbanding dates for LCUs...

But they said that is going into AE!

(in reply to FeurerKrieg)

Post #: 264

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 9:08:03 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Hmmm. Looks like you may be right. Looks like I was wrong. I change my position in that case. It looks like the Allies do objectively suffer from "respawn".

In addition to Jim's citation of dates and calendars (which is compelling), let me toss one more argument out for your consideration. When you compare respawn only against respawn it looks like sometimes the Allies get a benefit. But when you compare respawn against no-respawn, the Allies never get a benefit - because in no-respawn they always get those carriers (and on their real dates, as Jim pointed out).

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 265

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 9:10:12 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

We have disbandments, withdrawals and renamings in AE plus splits that allow small units to be on map at start but you need to combine them for the Divs you will NEED later in the war.

I hate attacking with Bdes they are just too fragile...

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 266

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 9:33:50 PM

Mobeer

Posts: 662
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
In addition to Jim's citation of dates and calendars (which is compelling), let me toss one more argument out for your consideration. When you compare respawn only against respawn it looks like sometimes the Allies get a benefit. But when you compare respawn against no-respawn, the Allies never get a benefit - because in no-respawn they always get those carriers (and on their real dates, as Jim pointed out).

The Allies get a benefit when their 5th and subsequent respawned carriers arrive.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 267

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 9:38:33 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

As a primarily Allied player, I hate respawn.

I consider my over-all defense early game as �aggressive, but not stupid�. I don�t have a problem committing my CVs to battle if I can pull a victory or a draw (indeed, I did accomplish that). I certainly do NOT consider them expendable simply because they�ll respawn. Now, I might get lazy and stupid and under-estimate my opponent (Bilbow just throttled me in 09-42), but I don�t consider them expendable. I recently lost several carriers because I under-estimated Bilbow, not because I considered them expendable on account of respawn. As it turns out, it�s going to be Spring 44 before the respawns arrive.

However, without respawn and given the historical arrival dates that Ron posted, I�d have 3x reinforcement CVs by summer 43. Given my existing assets, 3x fleet carriers would substantiate offensive drives in Spring/Summer of 43 (a reasonable historical situation if the Allies were historically in a similar position as I am). If I had a �historical reinforcement schedule� my loss would delay major offensive operations by about 6-9 months. But due to respawn, I won�t have similar projection for 12-15.

I didn�t play �expendable� with my CVs early on. Yet did put up an aggressive defense and sank 3x IJN CVs and 2x CVLs (at a cost of 1x USN CV). But it was my own Midway that just cost me 4x USN CVs. Yes, I�ll get a 5th CV compared to the historical 4. But the �cost� of that CV is 9 months of power projection, and that�s a LONG time for Japan to dig in. I�d rather get 4x CVs on a historical schedule (instead of 5), than to lose the 9 months. I don�t see how �respawn� has helped me at all.

And while I�m thinking on it, the respawn of those (total) 5 CVs will draw nearly 450 pilots from the USN pool. That�s a HUGE drain. Whereas the reinforcement CVs would NOT draw from the replacement pilot pool. The USN pools are woefully low compared to utilization later war. That�s gonna hurt.

Fek. I just thought of that. That�s gonna really suck.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 268

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 9:47:39 PM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

Well, worst case scenario regarding "respawn": If AE is respawn and respawn works on the same principle as in WITP and if a few other factors remain constant, then respawn CAN be modded out of the game.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 269

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 9:50:04 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobeer
The Allies get a benefit when their 5th and subsequent respawned carriers arrive.

The fact most of the respawns don't appear in most game till near the end of 44 more than mitigates 2 possible extra CV's. All those months of no CV's in 1943 and 1944 aren't made up for by a few months near the end of the game with 2 extra CV's.

As an allied player I want my historical CV's on their historical arrival dates please. Screw the two extra repawns, by the time they show up they no longer matter.

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 1/17/2008 9:51:11 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Mobeer)

Post #: 270