RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


VSWG -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 2:31:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I’m curious how the two AK fleets stack up against one another in AE. How many AK’s does each side have and what are their total lift capacities in tons?

I think the larger capacity allied AK’s should be respawnable with a 4-6 month respawn rate if possible. In CHS the allies have 2,009 AK’s according to VSWG’s count with a total lift capacity of 8,000,000+ tons.

Given that the allies will probably lose close to half of that in an average game that sees lots of KB raids going on, that’s not a very large lift capacity for the end of the war, were transit times can see AK’s at sea for 2-3 months one way.

The US could have easily made up for heavy losses if needed, just because it wasn’t needed historically, doesn’t mean it won’t be needed in some games. I’m not saying all allied AK’s should be respawnable, just enough to assure that the allies can maintain a decent lift capacity for 1944 onwards so the game doesn’t grind to a halt if Japan sank too many AK’s in a successful first two years.

Jim



[Also replying to Jim's posts in Gen. Hoepner's AAR]

You are correct, the Allies could have produced a lot more AK capacity if they wanted to. This is the Allied AK capacity in CHS, note how the curve flattens in 1945 - I guess someone high ranking figured that they had enough AKs to win the war:

[image]http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/4170/akur7.jpg[/image]

However, I don't think making AKs respawn is the best solution. I guess (but I don't know [;)]) that until late 1944 the US produced as many AKs as they could, so respawns shouldn't be possible, or only at the expense of other ships. After late 1944 it's probably too late for respawned ships, since they won't arrive in time to make a difference (what was the building time for a Liberty/Victory ship?). IMO it would be better if the database also includes ships that could have been build in 1945, but weren't (assuming there's data for these ships somewhere).

Furthermore, I think your estimate that an Allied player probably loses 1000 AKs in a PBEM is extremely exaggerated. I would be shocked to hear that the average Allied PBEM'er loses more than 500 AKs - maybe people who have played some games into 1945 can post some numbers.

Also, the problem you mention basically applies to all ships, planes and ground devices. The US could have produced a lot more of everything in 1945 if they had wanted to, but they didn't, since it was foreseeable that the war would end soon. Not sure how to handle this - make more "stuff" appear in 1945 than in reality, just in case the Allied player has to deal with a Japanese "overachiever"??




Jim D Burns -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 3:58:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG
However, I don't think making AKs respawn is the best solution.


If you read the PDF I linked a few posts up topic, you’ll see a chart in the appendix that shows Liberty ship production dropped off significantly after 43 (by more than 50%). I attribute this to reduced losses in the Atlantic, so 100-120 Liberty's a month were not needed anymore. But the fact remains the capacity to produce 100-120 Liberty's a month still existed in 44 and 45 and could have been ramped up again if needed.

I don’t understand the resistance to making some AK’s respawnable, there was more than sufficient capacity to justify it. Not all of them need be respawnable, just enough to assure there is at least 4 mil or so lift on map by mid 44 so the allies can keep the game chugging forward. Make all Liberty's respawnable and that should cover the rare game where too many AK’s are sunk.

Most games won’t see these ships respawning, but the rare game where the allies take massive AK losses will have some means of allowing the game to continue into 44 and beyond with a respawnable AK fleet.

I can understand how respawning BB’s, CA’s, and DD’s would change the game balance, but AK’s simply keep the allies in the game. They aren’t game winning ships, but if you lose too many they are game losing ships.

Here’s the chart:

[image]local://upfiles/5815/097E8ECCB5804A04A688FD1298AFDBF7.jpg[/image]

Jim







spence -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 4:14:12 PM)

quote:

(what was the building time for a Liberty/Victory ship?).


I'm sure it was mostly a publicity stunt but I think one of the Kaiser yards took a Liberty Ship from keel laying to fitting out in somewhat under 4 days.




Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 4:19:56 PM)

It was TOTALLY a publicity stunt...




Jim D Burns -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 4:29:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG
Furthermore, I think your estimate that an Allied player probably loses 1000 AKs in a PBEM is extremely exaggerated.


Here’s the 6/45 Intel screen from PZB’s old game. It wasn’t a CHS game, so there should probably be another 200 or so allied ships sunk from the SRA that aren’t sunk in stock games because they aren’t in stock.

[image]local://upfiles/5815/28C7F5B1902C42D69B9044CAD807ACBC.jpg[/image]

With 1700+ allied ships sunk, I think it’s safe to assume the allies lost close to 1000 AK’s if not more.

Jim






VSWG -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 4:34:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

If you read the PDF I linked a few posts up topic, you’ll see a chart in the appendix that shows Liberty ship production dropped off significantly after 43 (by more than 50%). I attribute this to reduced losses in the Atlantic, so 100-120 Liberty's a month were not needed anymore. But the fact remains the capacity to produce 100-120 Liberty's a month still existed in 44 and 45 and could have been ramped up again if needed.

I think the drop in Liberty Ship production in 1943/44 can be explained by the increase of Victory Ship production.

quote:

I don’t understand the resistance to making some AK’s respawnable, there was more than sufficient capacity to justify it. Not all of them need be respawnable, just enough to assure there is at least 4 mil or so lift on map by mid 44 so the allies can keep the game chugging forward. Make all Liberty's respawnable and that should cover the rare game where too many AK’s are sunk.

I don't like respawns because they are unlimited. It allows you to use your respawning ship classes in a wreckless manner, since you know they will "come back". Maybe you wouldn't play the game like this, and me neither, but there are already a lot of threads dealing with respawning US carriers, and how an Allied player should actually try to exchange carriers with the IJN in 1942 simply because then he'll get more Essex class carriers. I foresee that a players will use respawning AK classes exclusively for extremely dangerous invasions, simply because their loss doesn't matter.

Furthermore, you cannot prove that the US could have build additional Liberty/Victory ships without making sacrifices in other areas. Where did the "excess" steel go to? The engines? The manpower? Was it really "excess"? You have to make sure that no item is used "twice" if you allow large ships to respawn.

Again, I agree with your reasoning regarding shipping in general, I just don't want to solve the problem with respawning ships. Ideally, there should be a check sometime in 1944, where the game engine determines whether the Allied player needs more AKs, and increases their production for a price in resources or supplies.




Jim D Burns -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 4:34:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

(what was the building time for a Liberty/Victory ship?).


I'm sure it was mostly a publicity stunt but I think one of the Kaiser yards took a Liberty Ship from keel laying to fitting out in somewhat under 4 days.



The PDF article states the average time to build a Liberty was 30-40 days. Some yards averaged 15 days in the high peak period.

Jim




wworld7 -> RE: AE Naval Thread (12/26/2007 4:42:14 PM)

Thanks for the update, I look forward to it even if this changes.




Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 4:45:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

(what was the building time for a Liberty/Victory ship?).


I'm sure it was mostly a publicity stunt but I think one of the Kaiser yards took a Liberty Ship from keel laying to fitting out in somewhat under 4 days.



It was 4 and 1/2 days, and it was definately a publicity stunt. But it was still impressive. Name one other participant in the War who built a 10,000 ton vessel in 4 and 1/2 MONTHS, let alone DAYS (stunt or not).




VSWG -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 4:46:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG
Furthermore, I think your estimate that an Allied player probably loses 1000 AKs in a PBEM is extremely exaggerated.


Here’s the 6/45 Intel screen from PZB’s old game. It wasn’t a CHS game, so there should probably be another 200 or so allied ships sunk from the SRA that aren’t sunk in stock games because they aren’t in stock.

I said that the average Allied PBEM'er probably doesn't lose more than 500 AKs - this game is certainly an outlier.




Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 5:05:44 PM)

 
quote:

ORIGINAL:  VSWG

 
You are correct, the Allies could have produced a lot more AK capacity if they wanted to. This is the Allied AK capacity in CHS, note how the curve flattens in 1945 - I guess someone high ranking figured that they had enough AKs to win the war:
 

 
CHS ran out of ship slots, compromises had to be made. 
 
We are not experiencing this problem in AE.
 
 
quote:


 
However, I don't think making AKs respawn is the best solution.
 

 
 
There will be no respawn of AKs.
 
If the respawn switch is on:
US CVs respawn
US/Australian Cruisers respawn
Japanese Midget Subs respawn
 
 
Barge Types regenerate (not respawn).   This means that same ship is reincarnated in the same slot with the same name.
 
 
That is it.  Nothing else respawns.
 
You can expect detailed, extensively researched ship OOBs.




VSWG -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 5:11:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

You are correct, the Allies could have produced a lot more AK capacity if they wanted to. This is the Allied AK capacity in CHS, note how the curve flattens in 1945 - I guess someone high ranking figured that they had enough AKs to win the war:


CHS ran out of ship slots, compromises had to be made.

[...]

You can expect detailed, extensively researched ship OOBs.

...and so I'm wrong! [:)] If a possible AK shortage is solved by a better OOB then this is, of course, the best solution. Good news!




Jim D Burns -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 5:42:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG
I think the drop in Liberty Ship production in 1943/44 can be explained by the increase of Victory Ship production.


Allied player should actually try to exchange carriers with the IJN in 1942 simply because then he'll get more Essex class carriers.


According to John Ellis’ book World War II a Statistical Survey, the entire allied warring world combined produced 497.1 m. metric tons of crude steel between 1939 and 1945. Figures for the US are included, but only between 1942 and 1945 (the years they were at war). In that short period the US produced 334.5 m. metric tons of crude steel.

That means the rest of the allied warring world only produced 162.6 m. metric tons of crude steel between 1939 and 1945. The US more than doubled that figure in just three years, so I seriously doubt steel shortages are what caused the drop-off of US merchant ship production. The Axis warring world produced 196.5 m. metric tons of crude steel between 1939 and 1945, so the US in just three years almost out-produced the rest of the warring world combined.

If you review production figures for every major equipment item produced in the US, you’ll see a dramatic decrease across the board after 1943. This is because the US had won the upper hand in the Atlantic and over the skies of Germany. Basically the attrition war at sea and in the air was won by 43 and all that remained, was for us to build up for the land invasion to finish off Germany.

After 43 production figures dropped to a level that allowed the US to maintain current force levels and meet lend lease commitments. There was no longer a need to rapidly increase force levels. US force levels still grew in 44, just at a much slower pace than before.

I agree that some of the shipyard capacity went into producing Victory ships, but only 6 of the 17 shipyards that produced Liberty ships built any Victory ships.

http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipbldg/ussbldrs/wwii/merchantsbldg.htm

As to your CV respawn exploit, you seem to think the allies are gaining some benefit by the respawn, when in fact they are being short changed big time. These are the Essex class hulls that were renamed in honor of lost combatants during the war.

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, they were all laid down long before their earlier namesakes were sunk. So in fact the allies get hosed because unless they lose the earlier namesakes, they don’t get these hulls. I agree CV respawns should be taken out. But these hulls need to be added to the 1943 CV arrivals to make things historically correct. As things stand now, the allies lose the power of 4 CV’s in 1943 whether they lose the earlier carriers or not.

Jim




VSWG -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 6:43:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

According to John Ellis’ book World War II a Statistical Survey, the entire allied warring world combined produced 497.1 m. metric tons of crude steel between 1939 and 1945. Figures for the US are included, but only between 1942 and 1945 (the years they were at war). In that short period the US produced 334.5 m. metric tons of crude steel.

That means the rest of the allied warring world only produced 162.6 m. metric tons of crude steel between 1939 and 1945. The US more than doubled that figure in just three years, so I seriously doubt steel shortages are what caused the drop-off of US merchant ship production. The Axis warring world produced 196.5 m. metric tons of crude steel between 1939 and 1945, so the US in just three years almost out-produced the rest of the warring world combined.

If you review production figures for every major equipment item produced in the US, you’ll see a dramatic decrease across the board after 1943. This is because the US had won the upper hand in the Atlantic and over the skies of Germany. Basically the attrition war at sea and in the air was won by 43 and all that remained, was for us to build up for the land invasion to finish off Germany.

After 43 production figures dropped to a level that allowed the US to maintain current force levels and meet lend lease commitments. There was no longer a need to rapidly increase force levels. US force levels still grew in 44, just at a much slower pace than before.

I agree that some of the shipyard capacity went into producing Victory ships, but only 6 of the 17 shipyards that produced Liberty ships built any Victory ships.

http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipbldg/ussbldrs/wwii/merchantsbldg.htm

I already mentioned all this in the last paragraph of post #661. As I said, I completely agree with you that the US could have build a lot more ships, I just don't want to see this implemented by another respawn rule. For now I'm willing to believe that the new OOB will prevent any AK shortage for the Allies. If not, I hope they find a different solution, like adding the ships that were canceled by the Maritime Commission to the OOB, and implementing some trigger for their arrival, and a cost.

quote:

As to your CV respawn exploit, you seem to think the allies are gaining some benefit by the respawn, when in fact they are being short changed big time. These are the Essex class hulls that were renamed in honor of lost combatants during the war.

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, they were all laid down long before their earlier namesakes were sunk. So in fact the allies get hosed because unless they lose the earlier namesakes, they don’t get these hulls. I agree CV respawns should be taken out. But these hulls need to be added to the 1943 CV arrivals to make things historically correct. As things stand now, the allies lose the power of 4 CV’s in 1943 whether they lose the earlier carriers or not.

Believe me, I know all that. [;)]




bradfordkay -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 7:13:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG


You are correct, the Allies could have produced a lot more AK capacity if they wanted to. This is the Allied AK capacity in CHS, note how the curve flattens in 1945 - I guess someone high ranking figured that they had enough AKs to win the war:



CHS ran out of ship slots, compromises had to be made.

We are not experiencing this problem in AE.


quote:



However, I don't think making AKs respawn is the best solution.




There will be no respawn of AKs.

If the respawn switch is on:
US CVs respawn
US/Australian Cruisers respawn
Japanese Midget Subs respawn


Barge Types regenerate (not respawn). This means that same ship is reincarnated in the same slot with the same name.


That is it. Nothing else respawns.

You can expect detailed, extensively researched ship OOBs.


So MSWs no longer respawn? Is this because you toughened up the minelaying requirements?




herwin -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 7:15:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


As to your CV respawn exploit, you seem to think the allies are gaining some benefit by the respawn, when in fact they are being short changed big time. These are the Essex class hulls that were renamed in honor of lost combatants during the war.

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, they were all laid down long before their earlier namesakes were sunk. So in fact the allies get hosed because unless they lose the earlier namesakes, they don’t get these hulls. I agree CV respawns should be taken out. But these hulls need to be added to the 1943 CV arrivals to make things historically correct. As things stand now, the allies lose the power of 4 CV’s in 1943 whether they lose the earlier carriers or not.

Jim



So allow respawning, but after a two-year delay (to account for shake-down and movement to the POA). Use the original ship names for the ships that were renamed.




JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 8:45:02 PM)

I want to put this back on track, a bit, and discuss this in terms of the AE game.

Jim,

I doubt there exists a thoughtful student of War-2 that would take exception to any of your contentions. I personally agree. However, plausibility is a very amorphous and slippery concept around which to build a game; especially one of WiTP’s scope and scale.

There are very many speculative possibilities available to both sides, in terms of what “might” have been accomplished in terms of National industrial policy, and the like, as a function of possible events. However, redefining the game in terms of one potential alternative, no matter how likely, opens the door to every other deeply held alternative world view. If we include JWE’s alternatives, we must also include Don’s, Joe’s, Justin’s, some of which are conflicting. We call it “the slippery slope”, and we do not wish to go there.

There are many, and significant, changes to both the transportation OOB, and the characteristics of the ship classes. But, these enhancements were made with the contemplation of a more historical playing field, as opposed to guaranteeing any particular long-term historical result.

The true value of the WiTP system is it’s ability to accommodate speculative possibilities by providing modders the tools with which to implement them. The AE team is attempting to redefine both the granularity of the play space and the accuracy of the play pieces. To do this, we must be ‘doctrinally’ oriented towards specificity. If we do our job correctly, folks like yourself will have a much better departure point from which to proceed.




Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 9:33:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
As to your CV respawn exploit, you seem to think the allies are gaining some benefit by the respawn, when in fact they are being short changed big time. These are the Essex class hulls that were renamed in honor of lost combatants during the war.

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, they were all laid down long before their earlier namesakes were sunk. So in fact the allies get hosed because unless they lose the earlier namesakes, they don’t get these hulls. I agree CV respawns should be taken out. But these hulls need to be added to the 1943 CV arrivals to make things historically correct. As things stand now, the allies lose the power of 4 CV’s in 1943 whether they lose the earlier carriers or not.

Jim


So allow respawning, but after a two-year delay (to account for shake-down and movement to the POA). Use the original ship names for the ships that were renamed.



FORGET "RE-SPAWNING"! Just let the US get CV's 10, 12, 16, and 18 under their original names. An Essex is an Essex is an Essex..., who cares what you name it? The whole "re-spawning" non-sense has caused way more trouble than it was ever worth....




rockmedic109 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 10:53:34 PM)

If respawning is turned off, will the player get those hulls that were renamed IRL?




Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 10:58:26 PM)

Only if the scenario designer makes it so. In AE, the master scenario has respawn on, so no four extra ships.




Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 11:25:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Only if the scenario designer makes it so. In AE, the master scenario has respawn on, so no four extra ships.




So the US will continue to get gyped unless they run out and throw away 4 CV's at game start? This is really too bad..., it's one piece of non-sense I'd hoped AE could do away with.




Fishbed -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 11:27:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG
Furthermore, I think your estimate that an Allied player probably loses 1000 AKs in a PBEM is extremely exaggerated.


Here’s the 6/45 Intel screen from PZB’s old game. It wasn’t a CHS game, so there should probably be another 200 or so allied ships sunk from the SRA that aren’t sunk in stock games because they aren’t in stock.

[image]local://upfiles/5815/28C7F5B1902C42D69B9044CAD807ACBC.jpg[/image]

With 1700+ allied ships sunk, I think it’s safe to assume the allies lost close to 1000 AK’s if not more.

Jim





1000 AK, I wouldn't bet on that. I don't know how many PTs and DDs he killed for instance [;)]
It is not to be understood and a critic, but Andy is somewhat careless when it comes to escort most of his convoies once they have unloaded, mainly because he isn't left with enough warships to escort them in and out the danger zones (that he couldn't silence, as he had to go straight for the Philippines, being "late on schedule"). So well a lot of merchant losses here are due to Andy's voluntary sacrifice, trading US tonnage for quicker success. I don't know how Andy thinks about it, but even though a lot of his transports are getting sent to death on purpose because he doesn't have the mean to escort them, he still has enough of them to go on with the offensive... What I mean is that sooner or later, it would be good for the US player to feel a little "stretched out" if, indeed, he decides that transports (and crews) are expandable. Historically, in the Pacific, they were not considered to be so, were they?




Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 11:27:58 PM)

And it does... Just not in the release version master scenario.




Dixie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 11:40:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Only if the scenario designer makes it so. In AE, the master scenario has respawn on, so no four extra ships.


Can I ask why the Australian cruiser respawn is still in the game? There is (as far as I can see) no basis in reality for this. The RAN lost 1 heavy cruiser and 2 light cruisers and had 1 heavy cruiser transferred in, the transferred ship already appears in the reinforcement list anyway.

If there was a basis for RAN respawn then surely it would make more sense for the respawned ships to appear as British light cruisers (Crown Colony class would be the most suitable, or maybe even Town class ships). At least this would have some sort of historical basis as the RCN and RNZN both operated Crown Colony cruisers during the war.




RAM -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 11:45:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And it does... Just not in the release version master scenario.


I don't understand why not in the release version scenario. If I've read correctly all what has been posted here, AE's release scenarios will get the best OOB possible, so latter patches won't deal with the OOBs, and so won't force players to re-start games already being played. If so, then whatever OOB the release version scenario has, will be the definitive one. Meaning: the CV respawn rule will be there to stay (and...well, that sucks, the americans get four less CVs in the game unless they let four of his starting aircraft carriers to be sunk.)

I would dare to say this is a relatively easy thing to fix, 10 minutes of work with the editor (if that much), and deleting the CVs re-spawning ability from the game (so the toggle just controls the respawn of the cruisers and migdet subs, the CVs don't respawn but get their historically correct OOB, including the four Essex whatever happens to the historically sunk american CVs)...so why not taking the step and solving the issue for good?.




Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/26/2007 11:48:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Can I ask why the Australian cruiser respawn is still in the game? There is (as far as I can see) no basis in reality for this. The RAN lost 1 heavy cruiser and 2 light cruisers and had 1 heavy cruiser transferred in, the transferred ship already appears in the reinforcement list anyway.

If there was a basis for RAN respawn then surely it would make more sense for the respawned ships to appear as British light cruisers (Crown Colony class would be the most suitable, or maybe even Town class ships). At least this would have some sort of historical basis as the RCN and RNZN both operated Crown Colony cruisers during the war.


I believe the original reason was to emulate the renaming of a US Baltimore class cruiser for HMAS Canberra. Note that the respawn of an Australian cruiser is to a US ship, not Australian.

In AE, the respawn of Australian cruisers has been tightened to only CA.

By the way, my own personal preference is for non respawn. We should start a betting pool on how longer after AE release the first non-respawn scenario appears.





Dixie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 12:07:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I believe the original reason was to emulate the renaming of a US Baltimore class cruiser for HMAS Canberra. Note that the respawn of an Australian cruiser is to a US ship, not Australian.

In AE, the respawn of Australian cruisers has been tightened to only CA.

By the way, my own personal preference is for non respawn. We should start a betting pool on how longer after AE release the first non-respawn scenario appears.



I never actually noticed that [X(][8|] It's still 'wrong' though...

As for the first user scenario without respawn, probably about 3 hours [:D] What I would like, but I realise that it is not going to happen is that the game keeps the correct number of hulls and for there to be the option of a new ship being renamed whilst she is being built.




RAM -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 12:10:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

...and for there to be the option of a new ship being renamed whilst she is being built.




Just put them their actual names...with a II behind. So, Wasp II, Hornet II, Yorktown II...or name them using their initial assigned names...

and problem solved.




Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 12:17:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

...and for there to be the option of a new ship being renamed whilst she is being built.




Just put them their actual names...with a II behind. So, Wasp II, Hornet II, Yorktown II...or name them using their initial assigned names...

and problem solved.




Amen! An Essex Class CV is an Essex Class CV. What difference does it make in gameplay if it's named Hornet II or the "Black Pearl"?




witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 12:17:23 AM)

So can the player just use the editor to turn off the re-spawn switch, or will he have to add all the 'withheld pending re-spawn' Essex CV's as well?




Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.234131