How will repeat ship names be handled?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

How will repeat ship names be handled?

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> How will repeat ship names be handled?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

How will repeat ship names be handled? - 3/1/2003 12:46:32 AM

Mush Morton

Posts: 10
Joined: 12/2/2002
From: Virginia
Status: offline

If Lex, Hornet, Wasp, Juneau, etc are not sunk early on in the war what will be the names of Wasp II, Lex II, etc be? Will the game have alternate names to use? Or will we be able to change the names?

Post #: 1

Planned Names - 3/1/2003 1:19:28 AM

mbatch729

Posts: 537
Joined: 5/23/2001
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

Not official Matrix person, but I believe that subject has come up before, especially for the Essex class CV's. These ships were designated other names prior to the losses mentioned. I believe that if the losses don't occur, the ship name will be the previously designated name.

_____________________________

Later,
FC3(SW) Batch
USS Iowa

(in reply to Mush Morton)

Post #: 2

- 3/1/2003 3:31:07 AM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

Renaming ships is stupid. The names shouldn't change just because some other ship gets sunk.

Maybe give the players an option to rename ships in the game.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Mush Morton)

Post #: 3

- 3/1/2003 2:34:33 PM

Splinterhead

Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline

Yamamoto,

When the Lexington, Yorktown, Wasp, and Hornet were sunk, four Essex class under construction were renamed Lexington, Yorktown, Wasp, and Hornet. If the original ships weren't sunk the Essex class ships would have had their original names. If they are not sunk in the game, why would it be stupid to use their original name instead of having two Lexingtons, etc?

(in reply to Mush Morton)

Post #: 4

- 3/2/2003 4:21:04 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

They could just have the Essex class carriers named Hornet II, Yorktown II, etc. So if the previous one hasnt been sunk you will be able to tell the difference between them.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Mush Morton)

Post #: 5

- 3/2/2003 4:21:51 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

[B]Renaming ships is stupid. [/B]

How is trying to maintain historical accuracy stupid?

_____________________________

(in reply to Mush Morton)

Post #: 6

- 3/2/2003 8:50:39 AM

Zeta16

Posts: 1199
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Columbus. Ohio
Status: offline

I think he is trying to say that it was stupid to change the orginal names too Wasp II etc...

(in reply to Mush Morton)

Post #: 7

- 3/2/2003 11:04:37 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

By renaming new construction with the names of ships lost in battle, the navy felt that it was honoring the valiant dead. In the same manner were the names chosen for our early carriers: they were named in honor of either revolutionary war battles or early US (or Continental) Navy sailing ships. They were all named in the memory of those earlier ships, so why not honor their sacrifice?

(in reply to Mush Morton)

Post #: 8

- 3/4/2003 2:17:20 AM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zeta16
[B]I think he is trying to say that it was stupid to change the orginal names to Wasp II etc... [/B][/QUOTE]

That's exactly what I meant. If the Lexington sinks, so be it. We have pleanty of other names we could use. There is no reason to re-use a name. There were pleanty of other battles in the revolutionary war to name ships after. Also, I hate the Japanese transports that are named "xxxx maru #2" or "xxx maru #3".

On a related topic, ship names can't be unique because there is a British CL named Enterprise. I'm assuming it is going to be in the game.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Mush Morton)

Post #: 9

- 3/4/2003 8:00:25 AM

Bulldog61

Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/23/2000
From: Aurora,CO
Status: offline

Perhaps when a ship is complete the player could have the option to rename it for a ship sunk of the same type.

_____________________________

You can run but you'll die tired!

(in reply to Mush Morton)

Post #: 10

- 3/4/2003 9:55:48 PM

Splinterhead

Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline

Yamamoto,

Are you saying that the ships that were, in real life, renamed for sunken ships should use the names they would have had theoretically if they had not, in reality, been renamed? I think in some cases later Essex class carriers were given the unused names of the carriers that were renamed for the lost four pre-war carriers. What then, should these carriers which had no name other than the names defered from said renamed carriers be named?

(in reply to Mush Morton)

Post #: 11

- 3/4/2003 11:00:15 PM

Feinder

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

I'm all for the ability to rename units, including ALL units (land, air, and sea); or at least to add some sort of a label tag. Certainly have it default to whatever name was historica (including York 2, Lex 2, Wasp 2, whatever), but the ability to change a name allows :

1. A richer experience if the player so chooses.
2. The name or label can be very useful for quick reference to help maintain unit cohesion. Let me explain. In Panzer General, I would name my units like "I 3rd Pnz Div". The "I" was for "First Corps", and then the name and type of division (like Pnz or Inf or AAA). It helped me to maintain unit cohesion when (invariably as a battle played out), your units would slowly get scattered and end up in the wrong zone. Whereas, the quick ability of locate which formation each unit was supposed to be a part of, allowed me to maintain concentration of force. I would usually keep 3 corps, each with about 7 divisions, each corp was assigned an objective. Again, the quick notation allowed me to maintain the cohesiveness of the attack. I use the word "label" because I'm not sure that fooling with the actual NAME of the unit is a good idea. But as a commander, the ability to (optionally) attach labels to help catagorize my forces would be very useful.

I don't think you should be able to simply rename units on the fly tho. Doing so causes problems, as one week you get a scouting report that says the "Kaga" is in theater, the next week you get a report that "Joe's FlatTop" is in theater. Are there two CVs or just one?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mush Morton)

Post #: 12

- 3/5/2003 3:05:19 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

[B]there is a British CL named Enterprise. I'm assuming it is going to be in the game.[/B]

Yes, it will be.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mush Morton)

Post #: 13

- 3/5/2003 11:30:00 PM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Splinterhead
[B]Yamamoto,

Are you saying that the ships that were, in real life, renamed for sunken ships should use the names they would have had theoretically if they had not, in reality, been renamed?
[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

[QUOTE][B] I think in some cases later Essex class carriers were given the unused names of the carriers that were renamed for the lost four pre-war carriers. What then, should these carriers which had no name other than the names defered from said renamed carriers be named? [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, that would be a problem. I don't have an answer for that one. I like the idea mentioned by another player of letting people name their own ships. Of course, that could lead to some silly names but I think most players would choose appropriate names.

I remember when playing the old computer aregame "Empire" where you could name your ships I would always name my transports derogatory names of my opponent and friend Peter. Pathetic Pete, Poor Pete, Pissy Pete... lol that was fun. I only did that with the transports though because there were so many of them it wasn't worth taking the time to give them serious names.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Mush Morton)

Post #: 14

- 3/6/2003 2:48:00 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

That was an aspect of the original Imperialism that I really enjoyed. Each game I would choose a navy to be, giving all my ships appropriate names from the history of that navy. Of course, the times I chose the Confederate Navy I had to come up with appropriate names from the Confederacy, since my navy grew to be much larger than the original... As my empire would grow, I would have standing fleets of the most modern warships based around the globe to quell any opposition quickly. Never could gain quite the same level of superiority in Imperialism II.

(in reply to Mush Morton)

Post #: 15

- 3/6/2003 12:21:58 PM

Luskan

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline

Being able to rename units would be fantastic. As well as being able to properly name TFs instead of having just a designated number.

I want to call my Port Moresby Invasion Fleet something corresponding so it makes thins easier to keep track of on the huge WITP scale. However raises the question - what happens if the enemy encounters my tf. Does he get to find out what I called them?

Besides, renaming carriers would be brilliant. Each opponent would have to study the ship type to determine what they were up against AFTER the battle commences (just like in real life!). My opponents would have to ID what type of ship they were, and guess at their ordenance/ac capacity/loadout, instead of just going: Enterprise! etc.

Drafting up some ship names that will annoy my future opponents right now: The USN Beercan, or maybe the USN CV AntiRaver . . . :D

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to Mush Morton)

Post #: 16

- 3/6/2003 6:51:19 PM

Veer

Posts: 2231
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Excuse me
Status: offline

quote:

what happens if the enemy encounters my tf. Does he get to find out what I called them?

Even better for you if he does. Imagine him sratching his head and wondering what your 'Pearl Harbour Invasion' TF is doing 60 miles off Sydney...

_____________________________

In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter

(in reply to Mush Morton)

Post #: 17

Perhaps... - 3/6/2003 10:32:43 PM

jules

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/16/2002
From: Germany
Status: offline

... it would also be possible to rename entire countries, oceans or ....the whole game. Something like "What if WitP".

(in reply to Mush Morton)

Post #: 18

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> How will repeat ship names be handled?

Page: [1]