Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Yep, never understood why people get so excited over this one ... if the usa felt pressured, they would have not done the Tico conversions at all, not pulled a couple aside for future R&D and just spat them out like mad. From keel to commisioning could be done in 1.25 years. The 500-600 day range we have is actually longer then they could have made them in if they ever really considered Japan to be a real threat to their way of life as opposed to some anoyance they needed to deal with at some point in the future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

When I first learned of this rule I too was not happy about it. But the more I look at it the less of a problem it is for me. Here's why:

IRL, the USN received 17 Essex class in the Pacific by VJ day. Five of these arrived in 1943, seven in 1944, and five in 1945.

In the game, should the USN suffer losses exactly per history, they would receive 17 Essex class in the Pacific by VJ day. Assuming the replacements take 550 days, six of them would arrive in 1943 (3 in Nov and Dec), eight in 1944, and three in 1945. Okay, so there is a little bit of acceleration, but IMO not enough to make any difference.

In the game, should the USN suffer no losses whatsoever in prewar CVs, they would receive 13 Essex class, 3 in 43, 7 in 44, and 3 in 45. This seems reasonable.

In the game, should the USN suffer historical losses plus lose Enterprise and Saratoga on 1/1/42, they would receive 19 Essex class, 8 in 43 (again, 3 in Nov and Dec), 8 in 44, and 3 in 45. Again, I don't see anything here that I can't accept.

I really don't understand what makes people so unhappy about this. IMHO it is a fair and realistic way of dealing with two issues:
1) compensating for a early-war disaster by accelerating CV construction, which the US industrial machine would surely have found a way to do, and
2) discouraging an unrealistic but otherwise perfectly viable allied strategy of sitting back and waiting until a huge fleet of CVs has been amassed. If you sit back and wait, you get less toys to play with. The benefit given to the allied player of the first point is offset by the benefit afforded to the Japanese player by the second.

Comments?

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

Ooooh, I wanna comment but I've said my piece.

quote:

I know, you want the historical arrivals, regardless of what happens. But what then would stop an allied player from just holing up at Pearl until 12/43, when he can come roaring out with 14CVs and 8CVLs and sweep across to the Marianas ahead of schedule?

quote:

Fine! But just give us midget submarines to deal with them!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Yep, never understood why people get so excited over this one ... if the usa felt pressured, they would have not done the Tico conversions at all, not pulled a couple aside for future R&D and just spat them out like mad. From keel to commisioning could be done in 1.25 years. The 500-600 day range we have is actually longer then they could have made them in if they ever really considered Japan to be a real threat to their way of life as opposed to some anoyance they needed to deal with at some point in the future.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

Ooooh, I wanna comment but I've said my piece.

I know, you want the historical arrivals, regardless of what happens. But what then would stop an allied player from just holing up at Pearl until 12/43, when he can come roaring out with 14CVs and 8CVLs and sweep across to the Marianas ahead of schedule?

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I know, you want the historical arrivals, regardless of what happens. But what then would stop an allied player from just holing up at Pearl until 12/43, when he can come roaring out with 14CVs and 8CVLs and sweep across to the Marianas ahead of schedule?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Yep, never understood why people get so excited over this one ... if the usa felt pressured, they would have not done the Tico conversions at all, not pulled a couple aside for future R&D and just spat them out like mad. From keel to commisioning could be done in 1.25 years. The 500-600 day range we have is actually longer then they could have made them in if they ever really considered Japan to be a real threat to their way of life as opposed to some anoyance they needed to deal with at some point in the future.

Yep. Japan and her little people were such a none issue, despite Pearl Harbor, that CVs 10, 12, 16, 18 (all early reinforcement Essexes planned and laid down prewar, I might add), and all other ships which duplicate names (hmmm) were scrapped on the ways in a display of arrogant dismissal of the fishhead soup eaters.

"Hell, they're just little yellow midgets with coke bottle glasses who can't fight thar way out of a take out bag. They can only make cheap knockoffs of Yankee knowhow. Darn, ah bet if we scrapped a bunchah ships that are building reet now, that'd learn 'em a thing or two abaout messin' with this here, how you say, arsehole of demolition!"

But, as Japan dumfounded the western powers by kicking their sorry asses around the Pacific for six months and sank a whack of Pre War naval vessels, arrogance and ignorance was summarily kicked out of Dodge and immediately, new keels "were once again laid down in record time" (using the well known maufacturing process known as the "just add water and stir" method developed by J.W. Freshie).

And, too further confuse the little yellow buggers, "We'll name 'em after them boats that got themselves blow'd out the water! Hell, they'll never be able to figure that out!"

I was gonna keep quiet but all the explanations in support of this feature needed a foil.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Fine! But just give us midget submarines to deal with them!!!

Sure, got nothing against midget subs as long as they keep a regular sub busy to transport them to the hex you want to use them in and only get 1 shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

I think people just get annoyed when you sink two carriers on Dec 10 and your opponent sends you the e-mail that two new carriers have just shown up on his arrival list. It seems to diminish your accomplishment in some way. Also it seems to make the allied player overly free in risking his ships knowing that they will be replaced so there appears to be no cost in losing them.

It just doesn't feel right somehow. Here's an easy way to make people feel better. Give out some extra VP's for allied ships sunk prior to say April 42. Only applies to ships to be replaced.

Had the US lost its three starting carriers in the first months it really would have been a disaster. It would have reinforced the impression of JP superiority and enhance the existing post PH panic and disorder in the US. More important it would almost certainly resulted in forces being shifted from the Atlantic theater which was at a critical stage. This is worth a few hundred extra VP's.

This change might also cause the allied player to be a little more cautious early on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonmoltke

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I know, you want the historical arrivals, regardless of what happens. But what then would stop an allied player from just holing up at Pearl until 12/43, when he can come roaring out with 14CVs and 8CVLs and sweep across to the Marianas ahead of schedule?

A Japanese victory on points in 6/43?


Anyway, while I am satisfied with the implementation as-is, I still have the same problem with it that Ron does. 17 ships were completed before the war ended; 17 would have been completed regardless of the number of pre-war carriers lost. I don't think the Ticonderoga modifications made much of a dent in the production rate, since the first of those ships were laid down in the same month as the last of the Essex class ships.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

Massive alterations for kamikaze survivability

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

When I first learned of this rule I too was not happy about it. But the more I look at it the less of a problem it is for me. Here's why:

IRL, the USN received 17 Essex class in the Pacific by VJ day. Five of these arrived in 1943, seven in 1944, and five in 1945.

In the game, should the USN suffer losses exactly per history, they would receive 17 Essex class in the Pacific by VJ day. Assuming the replacements take 550 days, six of them would arrive in 1943 (3 in Nov and Dec), eight in 1944, and three in 1945. Okay, so there is a little bit of acceleration, but IMO not enough to make any difference.

In the game, should the USN suffer no losses whatsoever in prewar CVs, they would receive 13 Essex class, 3 in 43, 7 in 44, and 3 in 45. This seems reasonable.

In the game, should the USN suffer historical losses plus lose Enterprise and Saratoga on 1/1/42, they would receive 19 Essex class, 8 in 43 (again, 3 in Nov and Dec), 8 in 44, and 3 in 45. Again, I don't see anything here that I can't accept.

I really don't understand what makes people so unhappy about this. IMHO it is a fair and realistic way of dealing with two issues:
1) compensating for a early-war disaster by accelerating CV construction, which the US industrial machine would surely have found a way to do, and
2) discouraging an unrealistic but otherwise perfectly viable allied strategy of sitting back and waiting until a huge fleet of CVs has been amassed. If you sit back and wait, you get less toys to play with. The benefit given to the allied player of the first point is offset by the benefit afforded to the Japanese player by the second.

Comments?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mongo

I know they are on the wish list for midgets and kaiten. I'm
not sure how the game would model he midgies, but I would think Kaiten could be a variation of the ohka code?

Not to change the subject though

Frag is right about how Japan's military was perceived before the war. VERY few officers ever thought they were going to be a problem. Even the ones who had long term ties to the Far East had no idea. It wasn't until some of the Marines came back from late 30's China that the word started to get out. At that time it was still dismissed (as was most of the China Marine experience).

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Massive alterations for kamikaze survivability

Ron, not valid at all ... this was completely unknown factor until it actually happened.

The Tico changes were more about improving the CV based on experiences with the Essex's in 43, stuff in '45 is what drove the *next* classes coupled with innovations in aircraft design resulting in required design changes.

The USN while having ships not up to '45 standards were not really aware of '45 standards in '43 when they could have made an impact. The war ended at the close of '43 when the USN finally had enough CV's *AND* more importantly the *BRAINS* to adopt proper CV tactics. Prior to that point in time, they pretty much threw their CV's away as they didn't seem to understand how to use them effectively.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

When I first learned of this rule I too was not happy about it. But the more I look at it the less of a problem it is for me. Here's why:

IRL, the USN received 17 Essex class in the Pacific by VJ day. Five of these arrived in 1943, seven in 1944, and five in 1945.

In the game, should the USN suffer losses exactly per history, they would receive 17 Essex class in the Pacific by VJ day. Assuming the replacements take 550 days, six of them would arrive in 1943 (3 in Nov and Dec), eight in 1944, and three in 1945. Okay, so there is a little bit of acceleration, but IMO not enough to make any difference.

In the game, should the USN suffer no losses whatsoever in prewar CVs, they would receive 13 Essex class, 3 in 43, 7 in 44, and 3 in 45. This seems reasonable.

In the game, should the USN suffer historical losses plus lose Enterprise and Saratoga on 1/1/42, they would receive 19 Essex class, 8 in 43 (again, 3 in Nov and Dec), 8 in 44, and 3 in 45. Again, I don't see anything here that I can't accept.

I really don't understand what makes people so unhappy about this. IMHO it is a fair and realistic way of dealing with two issues:
1) compensating for a early-war disaster by accelerating CV construction, which the US industrial machine would surely have found a way to do, and
2) discouraging an unrealistic but otherwise perfectly viable allied strategy of sitting back and waiting until a huge fleet of CVs has been amassed. If you sit back and wait, you get less toys to play with. The benefit given to the allied player of the first point is offset by the benefit afforded to the Japanese player by the second.

Comments?

You may need to revise your list. For one thing it includes all USN CA's and CL's too. The manual states the OZ CA's (and therefore probaby CL's too) covered by this thing.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

No kidding the western powers thought that Japan was a non issue...before the war. It has been covered in depth. But they (USA with regard this debate) believed the overall threat to be severe enough to have initiated the massive 1940 and 41 naval estimates. Germany and fascism can't be ignored in these arguements. These estimates included four early Essexes and a host of lesser vessels eliminated from the database because of the name issue. Does anyone think that if the USN did not rename ships after those lost that a respawning feature would be included? EG. If CVs 10, 12, 16, and 18 were named Quebec, Brandywine, King's Mountain, Monmouth instead of Yorktown II, Hornet II, Lexington II and Wasp II, would they not be in the database as legitimate reinforcements, or would it be assumed that because Japan was not taken as a serious threat, these early build Essexes would not have been laid down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mongo

No Navy can leave old ships out of harm's way for one reason: public opinion.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Ok, maybe this is another issue where having respawn as an optional toggle would work,

Like many of the buidling air/ship/unit issue, I do not like the limits, but I do not like to micromanage.. my solution is give players preset chioces on easy toggles...
cv respawn on/ off
IJN oscar2 rule no/off
better sooner ijn de on/off

just my .02$ worth

quote:

You may need to revise your list. For one thing it includes all USN CA's and CL's too. The manual states the OZ CA's (and therefore probaby CL's too) covered by this thing.