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: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships!

 
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 >> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 7:57:55 AM   
WiTP_Dude


Posts: 1434
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

Also, consider this: you get 10 Essex popping back to life by Dec-1944. Until that date, you got as reinforcements the Hancock, Randolph, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La.


"Don't cut off your nose to spite your face"

You are going to lose on point advantage if you lose ALL of your CVs like this so early on. Not to mention the fact Japan will able to build up the Central Pacific into armed camp with size 9 forts everywhere. So in the end, if the Allied player wants to suffer catastrophic defeat after catastrophic defeat during 1942 & 1943 in order to get a few more carriers commissioned, I'm sure the Japanese player will be happy to go along with that strategy.

< Message edited by WiTP_Dude -- 8/18/2004 12:58:32 AM >

(in reply to fbastos)
Post #: 31
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 8:03:21 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

How to get 23 Essex:

Lose Lexington, Saratoga, Yorktown, Hornet, Enterprise, Wasp, Essex, Bunker Hill, Intrepid & Franklin before Nov-1943.

You get 10 Essex back: Lexington II, Saratoga II, ... etc..., Franklin II by Dec-1944

Then you get 9 Essex as reinforcements through 1945: Hancock, Randolph, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Boxer, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La, Lake Champlain

So you end with 19 surviving Essex. Add the 4 that you lost, you get a count of 23 built by 1945.

Also, consider this: you get 10 Essex popping back to life by Dec-1944. Until that date, you got as reinforcements the Hancock, Randolph, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La.

This way, by Dec-1944 you have 17 live Essex, plus the 4 you lost before, so you got 21 Essex total, when historically you should have 15. You got 40% more boats without losing anything else.


If you're so darn good that you're able to sink ALL the Allied CVs you should be glad for more targets and their associated VPs.

This complaint is one of the more ridiculous of the recent incessant complaining by the of Axis fans. Considering all the built in advantages they get in the game, I'd think you'd all just be happy with what you've got. In real life they never even had a chance. There was no Auto Win.

The respawn rule also penalizes players that don't lose their CVs in '42. Personally, I wish they had simply released the CVs with their original names and avoided the renaming debacle altogether. The way it stands though: If you lose 4, it's a wash - but you may not get your CVs as soon as you otherwise might have. If you lose less, it's a penalty - but BTW you're winning. If you lose more, it's a benefit - but BTW you're getting your butt kicked.

I don't see any advantage to losing a CV and not getting it replaced for 18 months or so. That's 18 months where I would expect any kind of competent Axis player to be taking advantage of their CV superiority.

_____________________________


(in reply to fbastos)
Post #: 32
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 8:03:45 AM   
fbastos


Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline
Oh, just noticed, you can get 27 Essex:

Lose Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise, Yorktown & Hornet by Feb-1942 (you'll get Lexington II, Saratoga II, Enterprise II, Yorktown II, Hornet II by Aug-1943)

By Nov-1943, you'll have Wasp, Essex, Bunker Hill, Intrepid, Franklin, Lexington II, Saratoga II, Enterprise II, Yorktown II, Hornet II. Lose them all.

You'll get all of them back by Dec-1944: Wasp II, Essex II, Bunker Hill II, Interprid II, Franklin II, Lexington III, Saratoga III, Enterprise III, Yorktown III, Hornet III.

Plus the regular reinforcements: Hancock, Randolph, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Boxer, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La, Lake Champlain.

So, bear with me: you got these Essex boats: Lexington II, Lexington III, Saratoga II, Saratoga III, Enterprise II, Enterprise III, Yorktown II, Yorktown III, Hornet II, Hornet III, Essex, Essex II, Bunker Hill, Bunker Hill II, Intrepid, Intrepid II, Franklin, Franklin II, Hancock, Randolph, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Boxer, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La, Lake Champlain.

This way the game gave you 27 Essex by 1945 (you lost 9 of them). Pretty far from the historical 17.

(in reply to fbastos)
Post #: 33
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 8:12:46 AM   
fbastos


Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline
Gentlemen,

Please, keep your mind open. I don't intend to kill carriers for Essex in a real game, and I don't argue that someone should do it (well, in the case of Wasp, yeah, probably should).

My point is that the mechanics are incorrect, open the way for strange behaviors, and it is much more realistic to just put the Yorktown II, Wasp II, Hornet II, Lexington II in the database as regular reinforcements, rather than magical respawns.

Don't understand why people are bashing me for that.

Regards,
F.

< Message edited by fbastos -- 8/18/2004 6:26:40 AM >

(in reply to WiTP_Dude)
Post #: 34
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 8:17:46 AM   
WiTP_Dude


Posts: 1434
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline
Now you're just be stubborn.

According to the manual, the ship must be lost before 1944. Note it takes 18 months for a ship to come back. Even if you lose the Lexington in January 1942, it will not reappear again as the Lexington II until July 1943. Now let's say you get that one sunk really quickly by August 1943. It doesn't reappear again until February 1945.

This is a very tight catastrophe schedule and will not likely happen this way. The question really is can the Americans produce more carriers if they had to. With these kind of losses they will likely want to.

< Message edited by WiTP_Dude -- 8/18/2004 1:18:10 AM >

(in reply to fbastos)
Post #: 35
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 8:17:53 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
As the IJN, I DO hope to kill them all.

(in reply to fbastos)
Post #: 36
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 8:26:04 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

Gentlemen,

Please, keep your mind open. I don't intend to kill all of the Essex in a real game, of course.

My point is that the mechanics are incorrect, and open the way for strange behaviors.


I really haven't seen anyone that likes the rule as it stands. An Allied player expects to do better than history and likely sees it as stealing CVs he should rightly have. An Axis player also expects to do better and rightly sees sinking all the Allied CVs as being impossible thanks to this rule. I agree with you that the rule aint that great. I just may disagree over its impact on the game.

_____________________________


(in reply to fbastos)
Post #: 37
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 8:34:42 AM   
fbastos


Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

This is a very tight catastrophe schedule and will not likely happen this way. The question really is can the Americans produce more carriers if they had to. With these kind of losses they will likely want to.


Yeah, that's a good point. I think that if the Allies are getting an unhistorical increase on the number of CA/CVs, something else must give.

Perhaps the Allied player should be allowed to switch some ship that is on the replacement line at more than 550 days, for a CV/CA that he has lost, provided that they have similar durability.

F.

(in reply to WiTP_Dude)
Post #: 38
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 8:51:47 AM   
fbastos


Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I agree with you that the rule aint that great.


So this is not the most ridiculous complaint you have seen, eh?

Perhaps the second most ridiculous, then..

Just wait until you hear me about the Americans getting an atomic bomb per month through 45...

(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 39
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 9:19:41 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

quote:

I agree with you that the rule aint that great.


So this is not the most ridiculous complaint you have seen, eh?

Perhaps the second most ridiculous, then..

Just wait until you hear me about the Americans getting an atomic bomb per month through 45...


Never said it was the most ridiculous. Said it was one of the more ridiculous of the many recent complaints. What was ridiculous IMO though was its presentation; not the dislike for the rule. In reality it's not a good thing to lose your CVs in the game. Safe to say that the game will end long before '45 for any Allied players that lose all their ships.

Also, it wasn't you that got to me. It was this comment: "Frankly I would be embarassed to play the Allies with such an easy street".

I'm more than a little fed up with the guilt trips being laid on Allied players. Seems to me that the battles should be in the game and victories should be won there as well; rather than by rules manipulation. Especially since nobody has actually finished a game yet. We really don't know how easy or hard it is for an Axis player to get an early auto victory. Until we do, I think we ought to just play the game as originally designed.

_____________________________


(in reply to fbastos)
Post #: 40
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 10:02:29 AM   
Culiacan Mexico

 

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaWolF K
The only flaw with this agruement is that there were historical replacements built that were laid down under different names and renamed to honor fallen sisters (and according to my Grandmother who worked in Naval intellegence during the war to confuse the Japanesse, don't know about the truth to this…
It sure confused me when I played the original PacWar as this was an undocumented feature.

_____________________________

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig

(in reply to SeaWolF K)
Post #: 41
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 10:08:13 AM   
Culiacan Mexico

 

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
While often accused of being an "Allied Fan-Boy", I too think the "whole-cloth"
arrival of "extra" replacement untis for those lost is silly. The American Economy
might have been able to squeeze another Essex into production in the event of
a disaster, but there simply wasn't shipyard space of the size necessary to add
in groups of them without giving up something else like the Alaska's or Midways.
As long as the game makes a reasonable period of time available for the Allies
to continue the war until real construction would arrive, I find this feature as strange
as anyone else does.
Reincarnation of these classes of ships never made sense to me.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
On the DD, DE level it makes some sense, as the US "cancelled" construction on far
more of these ships than the Whole Axis ever built once it was clear that the need was
met. Same was true for merchant shipping---the "million tons per month" rate could
have continued into 1944 if the need still existed. But the big ships required big
building slips, and even the US had a finite number of these. If the US is going to
get "replacement" CV's, it SHOULD cost them something else.
Thank God Japanese submarines suck and Allied ASW is very powerful or this area could be a problem if non-historical Japanese submarine doctrine is selected. Reincarnation of these classes does make sense, especially if non-historical submarine doctrine is chosen. Any success in this area would have drawn a counter move by the US. IMO

_____________________________

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 42
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 10:22:14 AM   
Culiacan Mexico

 

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos
My point is that the mechanics are incorrect, open the way for strange behaviors, and it is much more realistic to just put the Yorktown II, Wasp II, Hornet II, Lexington II in the database as regular reinforcements, rather than magical respawns.
Agreed.

_____________________________

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig

(in reply to fbastos)
Post #: 43
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 10:24:53 AM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline
I must be one of the few who actually likes the rule.

If I have more than two of my early war CV's, chances are I've done serious damage to the IJN and/or am winning fast. I don't need extra Essex CV's.
If I've lost more than four early war CV's, odds are I'm not doing so hot or am losing. A few more CV's would be helpful and not entirely unrealistic.

I think it's a pretty elegant balance. This "respawn" rule, as it's being called, gives me a reason to seek battle with the IJN instead of hiding in ports or launching wimpy raids for all of '42, and at the same time penalizes me if I put them in danger for a chance at extra CV's later on. From the IJ point of view, it has no effect at all. Everything you sink is helpful, and if the Allied player is getting several extra Essex CV's, you're probably going to play him to a draw or at least fight on longer than was done historically.

Much ado about nothing, IMHO.

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)
Post #: 44
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 10:42:29 AM   
Culiacan Mexico

 

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428
I'm more than a little fed up with the guilt trips being laid on Allied players. Seems to me that the battles should be in the game and victories should be won there as well; rather than by rules manipulation. Especially since nobody has actually finished a game yet. We really don't know how easy or hard it is for an Axis player to get an early auto victory. Until we do, I think we ought to just play the game as originally designed.
Win? I see were we have a difference, perhaps a major one. When I played PacWar the most hate feature in the game for me was the automatic victory. I am sure it is a nice feature for two people playing the game against each other, but it is completely non-historical in nature.

Japan is going to lose the war the only questions are in what manner and how fast. To me, especially with a game this time consuming, it is the game system I enjoy or have complaints with. It 2by3 decided to ‘give’ the US or Japan 10 more carriers, but balance the automatic victory levels to compensate… I wouldn’t like it, because they are adjusting the reality/game system to balance the game/victory conditions.

I am completely uninterested in winning… I want to enjoy the system. I get more satisfaction from a well planned and executed naval operation (in the game) than I will ever get from a ‘win’.

Just my opinion… doesn’t mean it is correct.

< Message edited by Culiacan Mexico -- 8/18/2004 11:38:14 AM >


_____________________________

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig

(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 45
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 10:58:35 AM   
Adnan Meshuggi

 

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline
beer...autovictoryconditions sucks...!

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)
Post #: 46
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 11:00:44 AM   
Adnan Meshuggi

 

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline
i think the americans could have built more essex, but have to give up other heavies...
if you loose your carriers in 42 - you have the choice to build a missouri less for example (engine is the problem)....
forget the victory conditions (in reallity, i would love an 1941-1946 scenario with 1 million points to each side, so nobody can win automatic. game ends in 1946. This was really the big sucker in pacwar !

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)
Post #: 47
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 11:17:36 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428
I'm more than a little fed up with the guilt trips being laid on Allied players. Seems to me that the battles should be in the game and victories should be won there as well; rather than by rules manipulation. Especially since nobody has actually finished a game yet. We really don't know how easy or hard it is for an Axis player to get an early auto victory. Until we do, I think we ought to just play the game as originally designed.
Win? I see were we have a difference, perhaps a major one. When I played PacWar the most hate feature in the game for me was the automatic victory. I am sure it is a nice feature for two people playing the game against each other, but it is completely non-historical in nature.

Japan is going to lose the war the only questions are in what manner and how fast. To me, especially with a game this time consuming, it is the game system I enjoy or have complaints with. It 2by3 decided to ‘give’ the US or Japan 10 more carriers, but balance the automatic victory levels to compensate… I wouldn’t like it, because they are adjusting the reality/game system to balance the game/victory conditions.

I am completely uninterested in winning… I want to enjoy the system. I get more satisfaction from a well planned and executed naval operation (in the game) than I will ever get from a ‘win’.

Just my opinion… doesn’t mean it is correct. ;)


You're correct IMO. :)

I'm very much the same way. I don't look at the score when playing the AI and certainly have nothing to crow about when I "beat" it. In Pacwar, I didn't want it to end in auto-victory either because like you, it wasn't about winning for me. It was much more about having at least a hint of what real people actually accomplished; and it helped me appreciate what they did all the more. That's what interests me in historical wargames. The emphasis is on history for me. Master of Orion is a much better game than any historical wargame I've ever played. It has it all but historical wargames are a richer experience for me because they're based on actual events.

It's precisely those that seem to me to care more about winning than just playing (usually in PBEM games) that I see as a potential threat to my own enjoyment. However, I'm all for those players getting what they want as an option that I can simply avoid.

_____________________________


(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)
Post #: 48
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 12:09:20 PM   
Culiacan Mexico

 

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428
You're correct IMO. :)

I'm very much the same way. I don't look at the score when playing the AI and certainly have nothing to crow about when I "beat" it. In Pacwar, I didn't want it to end in auto-victory either because like you, it wasn't about winning for me. It was much more about having at least a hint of what real people actually accomplished; and it helped me appreciate what they did all the more. That's what interests me in historical wargames. The emphasis is on history for me. Master of Orion is a much better game than any historical wargame I've ever played. It has it all but historical wargames are a richer experience for me because they're based on actual events.

It's precisely those that seem to me to care more about winning than just playing (usually in PBEM games) that I see as a potential threat to my own enjoyment. However, I'm all for those players getting what they want as an option that I can simply avoid.
I am leery of any changes to the game. Matrix and 2by3 spent considerable effort to test this game and it seems unlikely to me the can put the same time and effort into test changes. However, there are some features that detract from my enjoyment of the game system because I believe they were put in for game balancing. I am not opposed to game balancing, but wish it could be handled in a more elegant fashion.

Master of Orion
Master of Orion III

PS. The more ability there is in the game for each player to tailor it for his enjoyment… the better it is for everyone, except for perhaps the programmers/developers.

_____________________________

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig

(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 49
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 12:32:06 PM   
fbastos


Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline
The way I see it, a good game is one where you have historical results based on the dynamics of the game, and not on arbitrary rules.

Chinese partisans is an excellent example: you may choose to keep certain Japanese units in Chinese cities because you want to avoid partisan activity, rather than being forced by some rule. If you want to move these units out, you can, but there are consequences. That's genius.

The opposite example is with Allied air units: if you manage your air groups very well and you got 500 P-38s and 500 pilots on stock... you can only get them to battle as replacements as you're limited with the P-38 groups you can have. This limitation is arbitrary.

In the same way that I don't like free regeneration of warships, I don't like being forced to not use stock aircrafts if I wanted. I would rather say: pay political points to get your sunk warships back, and pay political points to use your stock aircrafts as new air groups.

F.

(in reply to WiTP_Dude)
Post #: 50
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 12:34:15 PM   
Williamb

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Dayton Ohio
Status: offline
I just get the feeling we will be arguing for the next 5 years over what rules need to be changed.

Then others will complain when they are.

Sort of a circular argument. It will never end.

(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)
Post #: 51
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 12:48:48 PM   
Dunhill_BKK


Posts: 80
Joined: 7/27/2004
From: Tasmania
Status: offline
That's the joy of being a grognard.

Arguing about the rules is half the fun.

_____________________________


(in reply to Williamb)
Post #: 52
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 1:08:33 PM   
Culiacan Mexico

 

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: William Amos

I just get the feeling we will be arguing for the next 5 years over what rules need to be changed.

Then others will complain when they are.

Sort of a circular argument. It will never end.
I don't agree with that.

_____________________________

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig

(in reply to Williamb)
Post #: 53
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 2:24:12 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

quote:

ORIGINAL: William Amos

I just get the feeling we will be arguing for the next 5 years over what rules need to be changed.

Then others will complain when they are.

Sort of a circular argument. It will never end.
I don't agree with that.

I say you're both wrong.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)
Post #: 54
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 2:26:08 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline
Okay, in what way when playing my scenario do the Japanese get more and better aircraft?

I admit you can now upgrade more groups to different aircraft, but you still have to produce them.
It is not suddenly free in my scenario.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)
Post #: 55
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 3:33:28 PM   
Farfarer61

 

Posts: 713
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
Pac War. Ken went through the whole OOB and hard wired it with historical arrivals and the 'real' armament and upgrades. He used the proposed names of unbuilt CVs etc. ( and made some up!) so that the builds were logical and there were no resurrections.

For upgrades , it was not possible to re-do easily, so we house ruled taking ships out of service ( i.e. to USA ). When 50% of a class had spent 3 months in port, you used the Pac Edit to upgrade the class. It seems like a lot of bookeeping, but we had quick reference sheets, and were willing to to make things as 'realistic' as possible, given the constraints of Pac War.

In the end, our ganes reflect historical accuracy for every gun, manoevering characteristic, what have you for ships and planes. The max speed of the old BBs, for example was dropped to 12 knots I think, which kept them in a proper role, even though they could go faster.

(in reply to Cmdrcain)
Post #: 56
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 7:09:54 PM   
UncleBuck

 

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline
List of all Essex Class ships built in Real life.

Essex Class Ship Listing
Ship Builder Comissioned
Essex (CV-9) Newport News December 31, 1942
Yorktown (CV-10) Newport News April 15, 1943
Intrepid (CV-11) Newport News August 16, 1943
Hornet (CV 12) Newport News November 29, 1943
Franklin (CV-13) Newport News January 31, 1944
Ticonderoga (CV -14)* Newport News May 8, 1944
Randolph (CV-15) * Newport News October 9, 1944
Lexington (CV-16) Bethlehem February 17, 1943
Bunker Hill (CV-17) Bethlehem May 25, 1943
Wasp (CV-18) Bethlehem November 24, 1943
Hancock (CV-19)* Bethlehem April 15, 1944
Bennington (CV-20) Newport News August 6, 1944
Boxer (CV-21)* Newport News April 16, 1945
Bon Homme Richard (CV-31) New York November 26, 1944
Leyte (CV-32)* Newport News April 11, 1946
Kearsarge (CV-33)* New York March 2, 1946
Oriskany (CV-34)* New York September 25, 1950
Antietam (CV-36)* Philadelphia January 28, 1945
Princeton (CV-37)* Philadelphia November 18, 1945
Shangri-La (CV-38) Norfolk September 15, 1944
Lake Champlain (CV-39)* Norfolk June 3, 1945
Tarawa (CV-40) Norfolk December 8, 1945
Valley Forge (CV-45) Philadelphia November 3, 1946
Philippine Sea (CV-46) Bethlehem May 11, 1946


Total of 24 ships of the Class. The Last two were completed outside of the WitP time frame. It is nto hard to beleive that if the losses necessitated these other two carriers that they coudl have been completed earlier.

Here is a complete list of all US carriers of all types Laid down by wars end. The final group were all cancelled with VJ day.

It is long sorry

World Aircraft Carriers List: US Carrier Force Levels
Compiled by jem3@PYUXF.CC.BELLCORE.COM
World Aircraft Carrier Lists Main Page: http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/

Note - this document was picked up from a now-defunct FTP site several years ago. The introductory material has been edited and clarified, but the content itself has not been modified, and we ARE NOT making corrections or changes to this document. We are aware of a small number of minor errors, but for the most part the material is accurate and very useful.

This document lists US Navy carrier force levels throughout WWII, and a timeline of carrier construction. The following specific dates and events are listed:
1. The date the keel of a carrier was laid down
2. The date the classification of a ship was changed to an aircraft carrier
3. The date the name of a ship was changed
4. The date a carrier was commissioned
5. The date a carrier was sunk



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The carriers themselves fall into four categories:
1. Large Aircraft Carrier (CVB). Originally classified as Aircraft Carriers (CVs), this category was established on 15 Jul 43 to apply to the five Midway Class carriers. The keels of the first three were laid down between Oct 43 and Jul 44 but none were commissioned prior to VJ Day. The remaining two were cancelled on 27 Mar 45.

2. Aircraft Carrier (CV). The large, fleet type carriers of WWII, e.g., the Essex and Ticonderoga Classes.

3. Small Aircraft Carrier (CVL). Classification established on 15 Jul 43 to apply to the nine Independence Class carriers. These nine were originally laid down as Cleveland Class light cruisers (CLs) reclassified CVs between Jan and Jun 42. All reclassified CVLs on 15 Jul 43. Also applied to the two Saipan Class CVLs whose keels were laid down in Jul and Aug 42.

4. Escort Aircraft Carrier (CVE). These ships were originally classified as auxiliary vessels and were not classified as warships until 15 Jul 43. Originally, they were Aircraft Escort Vessels (AVG) until reclassified Auxiliary Aircraft Carriers (ACVs) on 20 Aug 42. They became CVEs on 15 Jul 43. The majority (50) of these ships were the Casablanca Class.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following most dates in the listing is a status table indicating, for each ship classification, the number of ships building (BUILD) and commissioned (COMM).
1 Sep 39: Status of US Aircraft Carriers
Warships
In Commission: USS Enterprise (CV-6); USS Lexington (CV-2);
USS Ranger (CV-4); USS Saratoga (CV-3); USS Yorktown (CV-5)
Building: Wasp (CV-7).
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 5 1
25 Sep 39: Keel of Hornet (CV-8) laid down.
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 5 2
25 Apr 40: Wasp (CV-7) commissioned.
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 6 1
6 Mar 41: SS Mormacmail (MC Hull 47) acquired for conversion to Long Island
(AVG-1)
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 6 1
AVG 0 1
28 Apr 41: Keel of Essex (CV-9) laid down.
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 6 2
AVG 0 1
2 Jun 41: Long Island (AVG-1) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 6 2
AVG 1 0
18 Jun 41: Keel of Copahee (AVG-12, MC Hull 169) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 6 2
AVG 1 1
15 Jul 41: Keel of Cabot (CV-16) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 6 3
AVG 1 1
15 Sep 41: Keel of Bunker Hill (CV-17) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 6 4
AVG 1 1
1 Oct 41: Keel of Bogue (AVG-9, MC Hull 170) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 6 4
AVG 1 2
4 Oct 41: HMS Charger (BAVG-4) returned to USN
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 6 4
AVG 1 3
20 Oct 41: Hornet (CV-8) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 3
AVG 1 3
27 Oct 41: Keel of Card (AVG-11, MC Hull 178) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 3
AVG 1 4
27 Nov 41: Keel of Nassau (AVG-16, MC Hull 234) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 3
AVG 1 5
1 Dec 41: Keel of Bon Homme Richard (CV-10) laid down
Keel of Intrepid (CV-11) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 5
AVG 1 5
19 Dec 41: Keel of Altamaha (AVG-18, MC Hull 235) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 5
AVG 1 6

1 Jan 42: Status
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 5
AVG 1 6
2 Jan 42: Keel of Core (AVG-13, MC Hull 179) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 5
AVG 1 7
9 Jan 42: Santee (AO-29) reclassified AVG-29 and begins conversion
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 5
AVG 1 8
10 Jan 42: Amsterdam (CL-59) redesignated Independence (CV-22) while building
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 5
AVG 1 9
19 Jan 42: Keels of Barnes (AVG-20, MC Hull 236) and Block Island (AVG-21,
MC Hull 237) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 5
AVG 1 11
24 Jan 42: HMS Charger (BAVG-4) reclassified Charger (AVG-30)
1 Feb 42: Keel of Core (AVG-13) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 5
AVG 1 12
14 Feb 42: Sangamon (AO-28) reclassified AVG-26 and Suwanee (AO-33)
reclassified AVG-27 and begin conversion
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 5
AVG 1 14
16 Feb 42: New Haven (CL-76) redesignated Belleau Wood (CV-24) and Princeton
(CL-61) redesignated Princeton (CV-23) while building
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 7
AVG 1 14
25 Feb 42: Keel of Breton (AVG-23, MC Hull 239) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 7
AVG 1 15
3 Mar 42: Charger (AVG-30) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 7
AVG 2 14
16 Mar 42: Chenango (AO-31) reclassified AVG-28 and begins conversion
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 7
AVG 2 15
18 Mar 42: Keel of Oriskany (CV-18) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 8
AVG 2 15
27 Mar 42: Following CL's redesignated CV's while building:
Huntington (CL-77) to Cowpens (CV-25)
Dayton (CL-78) to Monterey (CV-26)
Fargo (CL-85) to Crown Point (CV-27)
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 11
AVG 2 15
15 Apr 42: Keel of Croatan (AVG-25, MC Hull 241) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 11
AVG 2 16
8 May 42: USS Lexington (CV-2) sunk by aerial torpedoes in Battle of Coral
Sea
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 6 11
AVG 2 16
18 May 42: Keel of Prince William (AVG-31, MC Hull 242) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 6 11
AVG 2 17
2 Jun 42: Following CL's redesignated CV's while building:
Wilmington (CL-79) to Cabot (CV-28)
Buffalo (CL-99) to Bataan (CV-29)
Newark (CL-100) to Reprisal (CV-30)
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 6 14
AVG 2 17
7 Jun 42: USS Yorktown (CV-5), damaged by aircraft on 4 Jun during Battle
of Midway, torpedoed and sunk by Japanese submarine I-168.
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 5 14
AVG 2 17
15 Jun 42: Copahee (AVG-12) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 5 14
AVG 3 16
16 Jun 42: Cabot (CV-16) renamed Lexington while building
3 Aug 42: Keel of Kearsarge (CV-12) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 5 15
AVG 3 16
20 Aug 42: All AVGs reclassified ACVs
Nassau (ACV-16) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 5 15
ACV 4 15
24 Aug 42: Santee (ACV-29) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 5 15
ACV 5 14
25 Aug 42: Sangamon (ACV-26) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 5 15
ACV 6 13
15 Sep 42: USS Wasp (CV-7) torpedoed and sunk by Japanese submarine I-19
south of Guadalcanal. Altamaha (ACV-18) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 4 15
ACV 7 12
19 Sep 42: Chenango (ACV-28) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 4 15
ACV 8 11
24 Sep 42: Suwanee (ACV-27) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 4 15
ACV 9 10
26 Sep 42: Bogue (ACV-9) commissioned; Bon Homme Richard (CV-10) renamed
Yorktown while building; Oriskany (CV-18) renamed Wasp while
building
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 4 15
ACV 10 9
26 Oct 42: USS Hornet (CV-8) sunk after being damaged by aircraft torpedoes
during Battle of Santa Cruz
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 3 15
ACV 10 9
3 Nov 42: Keel of Ameer (ACV-55, MC Hull 1092) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 3 15
ACV 10 10
8 Nov 42: Card (ACV-11) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 3 15
ACV 11 9
13 Nov 42: Crown Point (CV-27) renamed Langley while building
17 Nov 42: Keel of Anguilla Bay (ACV-58, MC Hull 1095) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 3 15
ACV 11 10
7 Dec 42: Keel of Franklin (CV-13) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 3 16
ACV 11 10
9 Dec 42: Keel of Liscome Bay (ACV-56, MC Hull 1093) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 3 16
ACV 11 11
10 Dec 42: Core (ACV-13) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 3 16
ACV 12 10
12 Dec 42: Keel of Alikula Bay (ACV-57, MC Hull 1094) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 3 16
ACV 12 11
15 Dec 42: Keel of Bennington (CV-20) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 3 17
ACV 12 11
28 Dec 42: Keel of Atheling (ACV-59, MC Hull 1096) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 3 17
ACV 12 12
31 Dec 42: Essex (CV-9) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 4 16
ACV 12 12
1 Jan 43: Status
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 4 16
ACV 12 12
5 Jan 43: Keel of Astrolabe Bay (ACV-60, MC Hull 1097) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 4 16
ACV 12 13
6 Jan 43: Reprisal (CV-30) renamed San Jacinto while building
14 Jan 43: Independence (CV-22) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 5 15
ACV 12 13
15 Jan 43: Keels of Bucareli Bay (ACV-61, MC Hull 1098) and Shangri La
(CV-38) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 5 16
ACV 12 14
17 Jan 43: Keel of HMS Begum (ACV-62, MC Hull 1099) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 5 16
ACV 12 15
22 Jan 43: Kearsarge (CV-12) renamed Hornet while building; HMS Begum
(ACV-62) transferred to USN and renamed Natoma Bay
23 Jan 43: Ameer (ACV-55) renamed Alazon Bay on ways; keel of Chapin
Bay (ACV-63, MC Hull 1100) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 5 16
ACV 12 16
26 Jan 43: Keel of Ticonderoga (CV-19) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 5 17
ACV 12 16
1 Feb 43: Keels of Bon Homme Richard (CV-31), Didrickson Bay (ACV-64,
MC Hull 1101) and Hancock (CV-14) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 5 19
ACV 12 17
6 Feb 43: Keel of Dolomi Bay (ACV-65, MC Hull 1102) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 5 19
ACV 12 18
11 Feb 43: Keel of Elbour Bay (ACV-66, MC Hull 1103) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 5 19
ACV 12 19
17 Feb 43: Lexington (CV-16) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 6 18
ACV 12 19
20 Feb 43: Barnes (ACV-20) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 6 18
ACV 13 18
25 Feb 43: Princeton (CV-23) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 17
ACV 13 18
8 Mar 43: Block Island (ACV-21) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 17
ACV 14 17
15 Mar 43: Keels of Antietam (CV-36) and Lake Champlain (CV-39) laid
down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 19
ACV 14 17
31 Mar 43: Belleau Wood (CV-24) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 18
ACV 14 17
3 Apr 43: Following ACV's renamed on ways:
Alazon Bay (ACV-55) to Casablanca
Alikula Bay (ACV-57) to Coral Sea
Anguilla Bay (ACV-58) to Corregidor
Astrolabe Bay (ACV-60) to Guadalcanal
Atheling (ACV-59) to Mission Bay
Bucareli Bay (ACV-61) to Manila Bay
Chapin Bay (ACV-63) to Midway
Didrickson Bay (ACV-64) to Tripoli
Dolomi Bay (ACV-65) to Wake Island
Elbour Bay (ACV-66) to White Plains
9 Apr 43: Prince William (ACV-31) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 18
ACV 15 16
12 Apr 43: Breton (ACV-23) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 18
ACV 16 15
15 Apr 43: Yorktown (CV-10) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 9 17
ACV 16 15
19 Apr 43: Keel of Solomons (ACV-67, MC Hull 1104) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 9 17
ACV 16 16
26 Apr 43: Keel of Kalanin Bay (ACV-68, MC Hull 1105) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 9 17
ACV 16 17
28 Apr 43: Croatan (ACV-25) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 9 17
ACV 17 16
1 May 43: Hancock (CV-14) renamed Ticonderoga and Ticonderoga (CV-19)
renamed Hancock while building
10 May 43: Keel of Randolph (CV-15) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 9 18
ACV 17 16
11 May 43: Keel of Kasaan Bay (ACV-69, MC Hull 1106) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 9 18
ACV 17 17
18 May 43: Keel of Fanshaw Bay (ACV-70, MC Hull 1107) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 9 18
ACV 17 18
25 May 43: Bunker Hill (CV-17) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 10 17
ACV 17 18
28 May 43: Cowpens (CV-25) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 11 16
ACV 17 18
31 May 43: Keel of Kitkun Bay (ACV-71, MC Hull 1108) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 11 16
ACV 17 19
7 Jun 43: Keel of Fortezela Bay (ACV-72, MC Hull 1109) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 11 16
ACV 17 20
17 Jun 43: Monterey (CV-26) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 12 15
ACV 17 20
8 Jul 43: Casablanca (ACV-55) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 12 15
ACV 18 19
10 Jul 43: Keel of Gambier Bay (ACV-73, MC Hull 1110) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 12 15
ACV 18 20
15 Jul 43: All ACV's reclassified CVE
Following CV's reclassified CVL's:
USS Independence (CV-22) to CVL-22
USS Princeton (CV-23) to CVL-23
USS Belleau Wood (CV-24) to CVL-24
USS Cowpens (CV-25) to CVL-25
USS Monterey (CV-26) to CVL-26
Langley (CV-27) to CVL-27
Cabot (CV-28) to CVL-28
Bataan (CV-29) to CVL-29
San Jacinto (CV-30) to CVL-30
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 11
CVL 5 4
CVE 18 20
20 Jul 43: Keel of Nehenta Bay (CVE-74, MC Hull 1111) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 11
CVL 5 4
CVE 18 21
24 Jul 43: Cabot (CVL-28) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 11
CVL 6 3
CVE 18 21
7 Aug 43: Liscome Bay (CVE-56) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 7 11
CVL 6 3
CVE 19 20
16 Aug 43: Intrepid (CV-11) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 10
CVL 6 3
CVE 19 20
17 Aug 43: Keel of Hoggatt Bay (CVE-75, MC Hull 1112) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 10
CVL 6 3
CVE 19 21
27 Aug 43: Coral Sea (CVE-57) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 10
CVL 6 3
CVE 20 20
31 Aug 43: Corregidor (CVE-58) and Langley (CVL-27) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 10
CVL 7 2
CVE 21 19
2 Sep 43: Keel of Kadashan Bay (CVE-76, MC Hull 1113) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 10
CVL 7 2
CVE 21 20
13 Sep 43: Keel of Boxer (CV-21) laid down; Mission Bay (CVE-59)
commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 11
CVL 7 2
CVE 22 19
14 Sep 43: Keel of Valley Forge (CV-37) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 22 19
15 Sep 43: Keel of Kanalku Bay (CVE-77, MC Hull 1114) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 22 20
23 Sep 43: Keel of St Joseph Bay (CVE-105) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 22 21
25 Sep 43: Guadalcanal (CVE-60) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 23 20
27 Sep 43: Keel of Kaita Bay, CVE-78, MC Hull 1115) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 23 21
5 Oct 43: Manila Bay (CVE-61) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 24 20
6 Oct 43: Keel of Ommaney Bay (CVE-79, MC Hull 1116) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 24 21
14 Oct 43: Natoma Bay (CVE-62) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 25 20
15 Oct 43: Keel of Petrof Bay (CVE-80, MC Hull 1117) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 25 21
23 Oct 43: Midway (CVE-63) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 26 20
24 Oct 43: Keel of Rudyerd Bay (CVE-81, MC Hull 1118) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 26 21
25 Oct 43: Keel of Sunset Bay (CVE-106) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 26 22
27 Oct 43: Keel of Midway (CVB-41) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 1
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 26 22

31 Oct 43: Tripoli (CVE-64) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 1
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 27 21
1 Nov 43: Keel of Saginaw Bay (CVE-82, MC Hull 1119) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 1
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 27 22
6 Nov 43: Following CVE's renamed on ways:
Fortezela Bay (CVE-72) to Tulagi
Kaita Bay (CVE-78) to Savo Island
Kanalku Bay (CVE-77) to Marcus Island
Nassuk Bay (CVE-67) to Solomons
7 Nov 43: Wake Island (CVE-65) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 1
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 28 21
8 Nov 43: Keel of Sargent Bay (CVE-83, MC Hull 1120) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 1
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 28 22
15 Nov 43: Keel of Shamrock Bay (CVE-84, MC Hull 1121) laid down;
White Plains (CVE-66) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 1
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 29 22
17 Nov 43: Bataan (CVL-29) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 1
CV 8 12
CVL 8 1
CVE 30 21
21 Nov 43: Solomons (CVE-67) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 1
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 31 20
22 Nov 43: Keel of Shipley Bay (CVE-85, MC Hull 1122) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 1
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 31 21
21 Nov 43: Solomons (CVE-67) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 1
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 32 20
24 Nov 43: USS Liscome Bay (CVE-56) torpedoed and sunk by I-175 off Gilbert
Islands; Wasp (CV-18, ex Oriskany) commissioned.
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 1
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 31 20
27 Nov 43: Kalanin Bay (CVE-68) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 1
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 32 19
28 Nov 43: Keel of Sitkoh Bay (CVE-86, MC Hull 1123) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 1
CV 8 12
CVL 7 2
CVE 32 20
29 Nov 43: Hornet (CV-12) commissioned; keel of St Andrews Bay (CVE-107) laid
down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 1
CV 9 11
CVL 7 2
CVE 32 21
1 Dec 43: Keel of Coral Sea (CVB-42) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 7 2
CVE 32 21
4 Dec 43: Kasaan Bay (CVE-69) commissioned; keel of Steamer Bay (CVE-87, MC
Hull 1124) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 7 2
CVE 33 21
9 Dec 43: Fanshaw Bay (CVE-70) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 7 2
CVE 34 20
11 Dec 43: Keel of Cape Esperance (CVE-88, MC Hull 1125) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 7 2
CVE 34 21
15 Dec 43: Kitkun Bay (CVE-71) and San Jacinto (CVL-30) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 9 0
CVE 35 20
16 Dec 43: Keels of Takansis Bay (CVE-89, MC Hull 1126) and Vermillion Bay
(CVE-108) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 8 1
CVE 35 22
21 Dec 43: Tulagi (CVE-72) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 8 1
CVE 36 21
22 Dec 43: Keel of Thetis Bay (CVE-90, MC Hull 1127) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 8 1
CVE 36 22
28 Dec 43: Gambier Bay (CVE-73) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 8 1
CVE 37 21
29 Dec 43: Keel of Makassar Strait (CVE-91, MC Hull 1128) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 8 1
CVE 37 22
1 Jan 44: Status
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 9 0
CVE 37 22
3 Jan 44: Nehenta Bay (CVE-74) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 9 0
CVE 38 21
5 Jan 44: Keel of Windham Bay (CVE-92, MC Hull 1129) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 9 0
CVE 38 22
10 Jan 44: Keel of Willapa Bay (CVE-109) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 9 0
CVE 38 23
11 Jan 44: Hoggatt Bay (CVE-75) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 9 0
CVE 39 22
12 Jan 44: Keel of Makin Island (CVE-93, MC Hull 1130) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 9 0
CVE 39 23
18 Jan 44: Kadashan Bay (CVE-76) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 9 0
CVE 40 22
19 Jan 44: Keel of Lunga Point (CVE-94, MC Hull 1131) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 9 0
CVE 40 23
26 Jan 44: Marcus Island (CVE-77) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 9 11
CVL 9 0
CVE 41 22
31 Jan 44: Franklin (CV-13) commissioned; keel of Alikula Bay
(CVE-95, MC Hull 1132) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 10
CVL 9 0
CVE 41 23
3 Feb 44: Savo Island (CVE-78) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 10
CVL 9 0
CVE 42 22
4 Feb 44: Keel of Salamaua (CVE-96, MC Hull 1133) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 10
CVL 9 0
CVE 42 23
7 Feb 44: Keel of Salerno Bay (CVE-110) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 10
CVL 9 0
CVE 42 24
11 Feb 44: Ommaney Bay (CVE-79) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 10
CVL 9 0
CVE 43 23
12 Feb 44: Keel of Astrolabe Bay (CVE-97, MC Hull 1134) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 10
CVL 9 0
CVE 43 24
18 Feb 44: Petrof Bay (CVE-80) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 10
CVL 9 0
CVE 44 23
19 Feb 44: Keel of Bucareli Bay (CVE-98, MC Hull 1135) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 10
CVL 9 0
CVE 44 24
21 Feb 44: Keel of Crown Point (CV-32) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 11
CVL 9 0
CVE 44 24
25 Feb 44: Rudyerd Bay (CVE-81) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 11
CVL 9 0
CVE 45 23
26 Feb 44: Keel of Chapin Bay (CVE-99, MC Hull 1136) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 11
CVL 9 0
CVE 45 24
1 Mar 44: Keels of Kearsarge (CV-33) and Tarawa (CV-40) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 45 24
2 Mar 44: Saginaw Bay (CVE-82) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 46 23
3 Mar 44: Keel of Didrickson Bay (CVE-100, MC Hull 1137) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 46 24
7 Mar 44: Keel of Totem Bay (CVE-111) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 46 25
9 Mar 44: Sargent Bay (CVE-83) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 47 24
10 Mar 44: Keel of Dolomi Bay (CVE-101, MC Hull 1138) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 47 25
15 Mar 44: Shamrock Bay (CVE-84) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 48 24
16 Mar 44: Keel of Attu (CVE-102, MC Hull 1139) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 48 25
21 Mar 44: Shipley Bay (CVE-85) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 49 24
22 Mar 44: Keel of Alava Bay (CVE-103, MC Hull 1140) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 49 25
28 Mar 44: Sitkoh Bay (CVE-86) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 50 24
29 Mar 44: Keel of Munda (CVE-104, MC Hull 1141) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 50 25
1 Apr 44: Keel of Frosty Bay (CVE-112) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 50 26
4 Apr 44: Steamer Bay (CVE-87) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 51 25
9 Apr 44: Cape Esperance (CVE-88) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 10 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 52 24
15 Apr 44: Hancock (CV-19) and Takansis Bay (CVE-89) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 11 12
CVL 9 0
CVE 53 23
21 Apr 44: Thetis Bay (CVE-90) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 11 12
CVL 9 0
CVE 54 22
26 Apr 44: Following CVE's renamed before commissioning:
Alava Bay (CVE-103) to Roi
Bucareli Bay (CVE-98) to Kwajalein
Chapin Bay (CVE-99) to Admiralty Islands
Didrickson Bay (CVE-100) to Bougainville
Dolomi Bay (CVE-101) to Matanikau
Frosty Bay (CVE-112) to Siboney
St Andrews Bay (CVE-107) to Gilbert Islands
Totem Bay (CVE-111) to Vella Gulf
Willapa Bay (CVE-109) to Cape Gloucester
27 Apr 44: Makassar Strait (CVE-91) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 11 12
CVL 9 0
CVE 55 21
1 May 44: Keel of Oriskany (CV-34) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 11 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 55 21
3 May 44: Windham Bay (CVE-92) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 11 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 56 20
8 May 44: Ticondroga (CV-14) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12 12
CVL 9 0
CVE 56 20
9 May 44: Makin Island (CVE-93) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12 12
CVL 9 0
CVE 57 19
12 May 44: Keel of Hobart Bay (CVE-113) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12 12
CVL 9 0
CVE 57 20
14 May 44: Lunga Point (CVE-94) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12 12
CVL 9 0
CVE 58 19
16 May 44: Alikula Bay (CVE-95) renamed Bismarck Sea before commissioning
20 May 44: Bismarck Sea (CVE-95) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12 12
CVL 9 0
CVE 59 18
26 May 44: Salamaua (CVE-96) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12 12
CVL 9 0
CVE 60 17
29 May 44: USS Block Island (CVE-21) torpedoed and sunk by U-549 northwest of
Canary Islands
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12 12
CVL 9 0
CVE 59 17
30 May 44: Astrolabe Bay (CVE-97) renamed Hollandia before commissioning
1 Jun 44: Hollandia (CVE-97) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12 12
CVL 9 0
CVE 60 16
5 Jun 44: Hobart Bay (CVE-113) renamed Puget Sound
7 Jun 44: Kwajalein (CVE-98) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12 12
CVL 9 0
CVE 61 15
13 Jun 44: Admiralty Islands (CVE-99) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12 12
CVL 9 0
CVE 62 14
15 Jun 44: Keel of Rendova (CVE-114) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12 12
CVL 9 0
CVE 62 15
18 Jun 44: Bougainville (CVE-100) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12 12
CVL 9 0
CVE 63 14
24 Jun 44: Matanikau (CVE-101) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12 12
CVL 9 0
CVE 64 13
30 Jun 44: Attu (CVE-102) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12 12
CVL 9 0
CVE 65 12
1 Jul 44: Keel of Reprisal (CV-35) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 65 12
5 Jul 44: Sunset Bay (CVE-106) renamed Block Island while on ways
6 Jul 44: Roi (CVE-103) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 66 11
8 Jul 44: Munda (CVE-104) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 2
CV 12 13
CVL 9 0
CVE 67 10
10 Jul 44: Keels of Coral Sea (CVB-43) and Saipan (CVL-48) laid down; St
Joseph Bay (CVE-105) renamed Commencement Bay while on ways
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 12 13
CVL 9 1
CVE 67 10
25 Jul 44: Keel of Bairoko (CVE-115) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 12 13
CVL 9 1
CVE 67 11
6 Aug 44: Bennington (CV-20) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 13 12
CVL 9 1
CVE 67 11
18 Aug 44: Keel of Badoeng Strait (CVE-116) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 13 12
CVL 9 1
CVE 67 12
19 Aug 44: Keel of Wright (CV-47) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 13 13
CVL 9 1
CVE 67 12
21 Aug 44: Keel of Wright (CVL-49) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 13 13
CVL 9 2
CVE 67 12
7 Sep 44: Keel of Valley Forge (CV-45) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 13 14
CVL 9 2
CVE 67 12
15 Sep 44: USS Coral Sea (CVE-57) renamed Anzio; Shangri La (CV-38)
commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 14 13
CVL 9 2
CVE 67 12
20 Sep 44: Keel of Saidor (CVE-117) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 14 13
CVL 9 2
CVE 67 13
9 Oct 44: Randolph (CV-15) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 15 12
CVL 9 2
CVE 67 13
10 Oct 44: USS Midway (CVE-63) renamed St Lo
23 Oct 44: Keel of Sicily (CVE-118) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 15 12
CVL 9 2
CVE 67 14
24 Oct 44: USS Princeton (CVL-23) sunk after being damaged by aircraft
bombs east of Luzon during the Battle of Leyte Gulf
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 15 12
CVL 8 2
CVE 67 14
25 Oct 44: Following ships lost off Samar, Philippine Is during the Battle
of Leyte Gulf:
USS Gambier Bay (CVE-73) by gunfire
USS St Lo (CVE-63) by aircraft
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 15 12
CVL 8 2
CVE 65 14
21 Nov 44: Valley Forge (CV-37) renamed Princeton while building
26 Nov 44: Bon Homme Richard (CV-31) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 16 11
CVL 8 2
CVE 65 14
27 Nov 44: Commencement Bay (CVE-105) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 16 11
CVL 8 2
CVE 66 13
4 Dec 44: Keel of Point Cruz (CVE-119) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 16 11
CVL 8 2
CVE 66 14
30 Dec 44: Block Island (CVE-106) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 16 11
CVL 8 2
CVE 67 13
1 Jan 45: Status
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 16 11
CVL 8 2
CVE 67 13
2 Jan 45: Keel of Mindoro (CVE-120) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 16 11
CVL 8 2
CVE 67 14
4 Jan 45: USS Ommaney Bay (CVE-79) sunk by kamikaze south of Mindoro,
Philippine Islands
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 16 11
CVL 8 2
CVE 66 14
28 Jan 45: Antietam (CV-36) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17 10
CVL 8 2
CVE 66 14
29 Jan 45: Keels of Iwo Jima (CV-46) and Rabaul (CVE-121) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17 11
CVL 8 2
CVE 66 15
5 Feb 45: Gilbert Islands (CVE-107) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17 11
CVL 8 2
CVE 67 14
12 Feb 45: Wright (CV-47) renamed Philippine Sea while building
19 Feb 45: Keel of Palau (CVE-122) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17 11
CVL 8 2
CVE 67 15
21 Feb 45: USS Bismarck Sea (CVE-95) sunk by kamikaze off Iwo Jima
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17 11
CVL 8 2
CVE 66 15
5 Mar 45: Cape Gloucester (CVE-109) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17 11
CVL 8 2
CVE 67 14
20 Mar 45: Keel of Tinian (CVE-123) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17 11
CVL 8 2
CVE 67 15
2 Apr 45: Keel of Bastogne (CVE-124) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17 11
CVL 8 2
CVE 67 16
9 Apr 45: Vella Gulf (CVE-111) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 17 11
CVL 8 2
CVE 68 15
16 Apr 45: Boxer (CV-21) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 18 10
CVL 8 2
CVE 68 15
20 Apr 45: Keel of Eniwetok (CVE-125) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 18 10
CVL 8 2
CVE 68 16
1 May 45: Keel of Lingayen (CVE-126) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 18 10
CVL 8 2
CVE 68 17
8 May 45: Coral Sea (CVB-42) renamed Franklin D Roosevelt and Crown Point
(CV-32) renamed Leyte while building
12 May 45: Kula Gulf (CVE-108) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 18 10
CVL 8 2
CVE 69 16
14 May 45: Siboney (CVE-112) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 18 10
CVL 8 2
CVE 70 15
19 May 45: Salerno Bay (CVE-110) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 18 10
CVL 8 2
CVE 71 14
22 May 45: Keel of Okinawa (CVE-127) laid down
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 18 10
CVL 8 2
CVE 71 15
3 Jun 45: Lake Champlain (CV-39) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 19 9
CVL 8 2
CVE 71 15
18 Jun 45: Puget Sound (CVE-113) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 19 9
CVL 8 2
CVE 72 14
16 Jul 45: Bairoko (CVE-115) commissioned
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 19 9
CVL 8 2
CVE 73 13
12 Aug 45: Construction of following ships canceled:
Bastogne (CVE-124)
Eniwetok (CVE-125)
Iwo Jima (CV-46)
Lingayen (CVE-126)
Okinawa (CVE-127)
Reprisal (CV-35)
CLASS COMM BUILD
CVB 0 3
CV 19 7
CVL 8 2
CVE 73 9

I think the argument that the Allies get more carriers is ridiculous. Look into the Midway class Carriers and see when they were designed and were supposed to be brought online. How would you like to see a couple of those things in teh game During War time?
By the time these ships show up in the game for the Allies the Jig is up for Japan. Ifyou have nto won the war or are real close to a Victory condidtion by Jun 1945 you are not going to win, baring a great allied blunder. You just get out produced which is what woudl really have happened, no matter what Japan had done wiht there production during the war. Facts are We had more to start , they had less. We built more during the war and they could not compete. After 1943 Russia was no longer draining Allied supply and was totally self Sufficient. the US was on a Full War Footing for industry and GB was off the ropes. Wiht VE day the die was cast for JP. In fact after June 1943 the Die was Cast for JP. The Russians had gone on the offensive in Europe and probably would have beaten the Germans alone , the other Allies helped a great deal, but only with how long it took to beat Germany not if. Once these supplies and such were released from Russian need it could all be sent to the Pacific. Once germany was defeated and ALl of GB and US force coudl be brought to bear on JP how long woudl it have lasted. Remember that we also do not get the 25 Divisions of troops from Europe that were slated to go to the Pacific. These woudl not only be Fresh Divisions but all with experience near 90 in game terms. Add to this the balance of teh 3rd and 5th fleets and you are talking Serious increase in combat power. Fly all of the Heavy Air Units from Europe, woth all of the very experienced Attack, Medium and Heavy Bomber units and it gets worse. DO the Japanese get teh short end of the stick in WitP? Yes. Should it change? NO. You play the JP to try and do better. I have seen so many games ruined due to play balancing. I woudl hate to see this one fall to the same fate.

UB

_____________________________


(in reply to Farfarer61)
Post #: 57
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 7:19:41 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

DO the Japanese get teh short end of the stick in WitP? Yes. Should it change? NO. You play the JP to try and do better. I have seen so many games ruined due to play balancing. I woudl hate to see this one fall to the same fate.

I agree. This IJN fanboy says let's drop this and move on. In any case it previously has been made abundantly clear that on this issue there is not going to be any change made....

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to UncleBuck)
Post #: 58
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 7:32:38 PM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline
Hehehehehe. I had forgotten the VE day Effect.

Yeah, I want 25 divisions in SF, all with Exp 90, on 9/1/45. (How many of those are armored?)
I want all the transport that had been in the Atlantic, and the Atlantic and Med fleets.

And I want every single Aircraft in the Med, Europe or the North Atlantic on the same date (I will generously agree to only take 90 experience to make things simple).

Remember the US is backing off on produciton by the late war (someone mentioned that AK production was actually decreasing) because the US had all it could imagine needing, not because the US was out of Supply, HI or Oil.

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 59
RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! - 8/18/2004 7:48:23 PM   
strawbuk


Posts: 289
Joined: 4/30/2004
From: London via Glos
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

Hehehehehe. I had forgotten the VE day Effect.

Yeah, I want 25 divisions in SF, all with Exp 90, on 9/1/45. (How many of those are armored?)



Highly experienced but highly p*ssed off. They'd won one war (well they help Brits really...) somebody other Joe should win next one.

_____________________________



Twinkle twinkle PBY
Seeking Kido Bu-tai
Flying o' the sea so high
An ill-omen in the sky
Twinkle twinkle PBY
Pointing out who's next to fry

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.703