RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (Full Version)

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

Message

Panther Bait -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 12:29:49 AM)
As I understand the system they have described, an Modder would have to do both, remove all the CV repspawns and then add the missing Essexes to the ship reinforcement list. But from the sounds of the new editor, this doesn't sound like very much work at all.

Andrew Brown -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 12:42:54 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. Well, that is if you think CV respawning IS a problem. But that is merely one viewpoint, and it is not the only one. I certainly do not agree. In fact I am a strong supporter of the rule. I believe it makes sense to include it and I would always play with it. Andrew

jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 1:05:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown 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. Well, that is if you think CV respawning IS a problem. But that is merely one viewpoint, and it is not the only one. I certainly do not agree. In fact I am a strong supporter of the rule. I believe it makes sense to include it and I would always play with it. Andrew Let the AE Team do an internal huddle on this question - we will get back to you!

RAM -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 1:17:41 AM)
i'll be more than happy to accept it as the developers think it must be done, and of course I don't think my own opinion should stand over anyone else's... however... quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown if you think CV respawning IS a problem. But that is merely one viewpoint, and it is not the only one. I certainly do not agree. In fact I am a strong supporter of the rule. I believe it makes sense to include it and I would always play with it. Andrew This surprises me quite a bit coming from you, even more because I know all the excellent work you did for CHS (and assume you're doing now for AE :)) in order to ,among many other things, bring the OOBs as near as possible to an historically accurate level. By agreeing with this rule, you're agreeing with erasing the existance of four CV hulls in the US Navy, unless other four CVs are sunk before that. That would make sense if those ships were ordered and built as replacements to the lost ships, but the fact is that, had the Lexington, Hornet, Wasp and Yorktown survived, those four ships would've existed anyway, just under other names. I'm more than open towards another points of view, but I fail to understand how you can be a strong supporter of the CV respawn rule ,being as you are someone who clearly likes the game as close as the real thing as possible (even more seeing the degree of detail CHS has). Maybe I'm losing something here... Anyway, I'm not trying to open a debate about it, just giving some ideas. This horse has been beating too many times in this board and would be senseless to argue about it again :). As I said, I'm more than happy to accept the rule as the development team wants to implement it (mostly because, being the horrible player I am, it's certified that I'll always lose a good number of my carriers in '42, so I'll always get those four CVs :D)

witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 1:55:33 AM)
One thing I find particularly silly about the carrier re-spawn rule is that if the US canceled any carrier hulls, it would have canceled the last 4 hulls produced, not some of the first few Essex's. And of course, given the course of the war and the growing need for carrier air power as the war progressed, they would not have canceled the later Essex's when the time came to make that decision. I also do not believe they would have diverted 4 carriers to the Atlantic. Just my own opinion - I hate the re-spawn rule, including for cruisers.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 2:25:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown I certainly do not agree. In fact I am a strong supporter of the rule. I believe it makes sense to include it and I would always play with it. Andrew WHY? A rule that REQUIRES one side to lose 4 ships it has..., just to get 4 ships it's already building? Your logic totally evades me, Andrew. The US was churning out Essex's on every available slipway during the war and even after it was over. Why should the game "steal" 4 of them and hold them "hostage" against good play? Can you explain why you "strongly support" this please?

witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 2:35:57 AM)
And furthermore, the team has rejected 'what if' issues for the AE campaign scenario - reject the 'what if' re-spawn!

Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 2:47:42 AM)
My opinion on this is that respawning should not be included. However, any ships that were cancelled should also be included and be left up to the player to produce them or not. Here is the thing, given what happens during a game, a player may find he needs those additional ships that were in RL cancelled. The AI could always use the help, so we'll just assume it wants it. This should go for both sides as well. Japanese ships that were planned but ended up cancelled should be available to produce. House rules can determine if the PBEM players want to allow them or not. The AI needs the help, and it gives someone playing against the AI more stuff to shoot at. Just my opinion. [;)]

GaryChildress -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 7:38:30 AM)
Will Ioshima and Yasoshima be in the game. Historically they started life as Chinese cruisers, sunk and raised by the Japanese to appear late in the war in the Japanese Navy. Also there is the Thai navy with their gunboats and coastal defense ships.

Andrew Brown -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 8:40:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown I certainly do not agree. In fact I am a strong supporter of the rule. I believe it makes sense to include it and I would always play with it. Andrew WHY? A rule that REQUIRES one side to lose 4 ships it has..., just to get 4 ships it's already building? Your logic totally evades me, Andrew. The US was churning out Essex's on every available slipway during the war and even after it was over. Why should the game "steal" 4 of them and hold them "hostage" against good play? Can you explain why you "strongly support" this please? I should preface my remarks by saying they are only my personal opinions - NOT the official opinion of those working on AE. The view I take is that the USA gave priority to those areas of production that it thought were necessary, depending on the situation in the war. Amd that they had the capability to change that priority as circumstances changed. They did not, in my opinion, cast their production schedules in stone at the start of the war and refuse to vary them regardless of their needs. Taking this further, it is also my view that if the US had lost fewer CVs, they would have slowed later CV production more than they actually did (and it did slow later in the war). If they lost more CVs, it is my view that they would have made even more effort to complete and commission the CVs they did build earlier than they managed to do. Removing respawning of CVs only makes sense if you believe that the USA would stick to a rigid, fixed building schedule from the start of the war without any later changes due to unfolding events or needs. That is why CV respawning makes sense to me. Andrew

witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 9:30:54 AM)
I disagree it requires presuming that level of rigidity. As I mentioned, if anything, the last 4 (or fewer) Essex's would have been the ones slowed or 'de'-spawned, not earlier ones that would make a much bigger difference to the war effort. Also, alas, there is no provision for production or spawning to be modified based on the real conduct of the war going well or not - the capture of bases close to Japan for bombing and eventual invasion. Yes, Andrew we are trying to convince you and win you over to our side of this argument! [:)] Besides, having a 'spawning' rule makes it sound like there should be a bunch of baby flattops running around! [&:]

rockmedic109 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 10:14:20 AM)
When I first read about the respawn rule {back when WITP first came out}, I thought "Great!!".�� Having a new carrier renamed for one that is lost happened IRL, and one more point of detail in the game.� Perhaps a better {though likely impossible} way would be to just have the CV hulls built come in with the ability to change the new carriers' name? But this would nullify Andrew's argument about unnecessary CVs being built; admittedly an argument that I don't quite agree with.� Perhaps naming "spawned" carriers after species of Salmon?

okami -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 10:39:25 AM)
The repawn rule makes no historical sense. Yes the US would have increased their carrier production in the face of catastrophic carrier loses, but historically they lost 4 of their original 6 carriers in 1942-43. Slipway limitations can not be ignored, they only had so many. Yes they could have built more but this is not modelled in the game. Respawned carriers are free, they have no cost and delay no other naval construction. If respawn stopped the construction of a like number of vessels then it would be more palidable to those of us who look at it's ahistorical effects.

Gen.Hoepner -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 10:43:00 AM)
I'd say the "Best" way to deal with this problem is giving the players the option to chose "respawn" on or off at the beginning of their games. If set to "on" the respawn acts as it does right now. If set to "off" the essex CVs come as scheldued, with other names, no matter if you lose the respwanable carriers or not. Seems quite simple to me, but i do not know if the code allows you to do so without screwing up much things

Gen.Hoepner -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 10:54:46 AM)
Hi, probably has been aswered before, but have something changed with subs, wolfpack tactics and generally speaking the sub attacking routines (a part from the patrolling zones)?

Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 1:20:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: okami The repawn rule makes no historical sense. Yes the US would have increased their carrier production in the face of catastrophic carrier loses, but historically they lost 4 of their original 6 carriers in 1942-43. Slipway limitations can not be ignored, they only had so many. Yes they could have built more but this is not modelled in the game. Respawned carriers are free, they have no cost and delay no other naval construction. If respawn stopped the construction of a like number of vessels then it would be more palidable to those of us who look at it's ahistorical effects. NO, they are not "free". This is a totally mistaken assumption fostered by JFB's. CV's 10, 12, 15, and 18 were already laid down and being built under different names. What the programming SHOULD do is change the NAMES. But instead "2by3" programmed it so the US didn't get them at all if the original CV's weren't sunk! As if the US was going to complete them, then scrap them on the ways because the names weren't available. It was an idotic programming decision the day it was made, and it's still idiotic today. And please, no non-sense about how the American's wouldn't have built as many if they hadn't lost the originals. They were still completing Essex Class CV's (and Midway's) after the war ended.

okami -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 3:38:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: okami The repawn rule makes no historical sense. Yes the US would have increased their carrier production in the face of catastrophic carrier loses, but historically they lost 4 of their original 6 carriers in 1942-43. Slipway limitations can not be ignored, they only had so many. Yes they could have built more but this is not modelled in the game. Respawned carriers are free, they have no cost and delay no other naval construction. If respawn stopped the construction of a like number of vessels then it would be more palidable to those of us who look at it's ahistorical effects. NO, they are not "free". This is a totally mistaken assumption fostered by JFB's. CV's 10, 12, 15, and 18 were already laid down and being built under different names. What the programming SHOULD do is change the NAMES. But instead "2by3" programmed it so the US didn't get them at all if the original CV's weren't sunk! As if the US was going to complete them, then scrap them on the ways because the names weren't available. It was an idotic programming decision the day it was made, and it's still idiotic today. And please, no non-sense about how the American's wouldn't have built as many if they hadn't lost the originals. They were still completing Essex Class CV's (and Midway's) after the war ended. Actually while you are correct that the carriers in question were just renamed and that the game does not give you enough of the actual carriers. The opposite view is also correct. If you lose to many carriers then you get them for free. I would do away with respawn and have the correct OOB. Respawn is a AFB's wetdream. My argument is not that they would not have built more but that they did not have the slipways to build more simultaneously.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 4:05:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: okami Actually while you are correct that the carriers in question were just renamed and that the game does not give you enough of the actual carriers. The opposite view is also correct. If you lose to many carriers then you get them for free. I would do away with respawn and have the correct OOB. Respawn is a AFB's wetdream. My argument is not that they would not have built more but that they did not have the slipways to build more simultaneously. Right. Just what every Allied player dreams of..., launching his first six CV's straight into guaranteed disasters just to get two "freebies" in 1944. So much fun playing a year or more without a single CV in the Pacific to counter KB. The real truth is that "re-spawn" is a "crock". Always has been, always will be. At least we can agree on that.

Jim D Burns -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 5:45:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson Let the AE Team do an internal huddle on this question - we will get back to you! If you�re going to leave the CV respawn rule in, then please shorten the time to respawn to just six months or something. My biggest gripe about the rule is it takes almost as long as it took to build a new carrier to respawn one, as if one was ordered and laid down the day you lost the CV instead of one on the ways simply being renamed. With a six month respawn at least the allies would get some new CV�s in 43 then. As it is now the rule simply gives Japan about a year and a half or more of no new allied CV�s arriving on map if he gets lucky and sinks most of the allied CV�s in 42. I think most people would be willing to play with the rule if it wasn�t so all or nothing for allied CV power on map in games where disaster strikes the allies. Personally I would prefer to simply axe any respawn rule and give the historical ships to the players with mark II names (can't use original names as they were given to later hulls). But if the team leaves in respawning then please shorten the time to respawn in the interest of keeping the game interesting in 1943. Jim

Jim D Burns -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 6:18:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown The view I take is that the USA gave priority to those areas of production that it thought were necessary, depending on the situation in the war. Hi Andrew, I�d have to disagree with you on CV production being scaled down due to a lack of the need to replace losses. While they did cancel two Essex class CV�s in 1945, they finished 5 that never saw action. And even with the war over and dozens of fleet carriers already afloat, they went on to finish 4 more in 1946 and 1 in 1950. http://ehistory.osu.edu/wwii/USNCV3.cfm The US was already thinking ahead, the CV had become the source of power projection across the globe. And while the hulls were no longer really needed to finish the war with Japan, they were seen to be needed in the coming peace. Most other hull types were dependant more on wartime events when it came to the scale of produced hulls, but fleet carriers were the new political big stick and fit into a totally different category all their own. Jim

bradfordkay -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 6:48:42 PM)
My preference is to receive the historical ships at the historical time of arrival. The names can be adjusted (the original name of Yorktown II, I don't care).

jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 7:49:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner Hi, probably has been aswered before, but have something changed with subs, wolfpack tactics and generally speaking the sub attacking routines (a part from the patrolling zones)? Not directly, no. The patrol zones will change things and new damage routines will change things, but these will be more "indirect" than "direct".

tsimmonds -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 9:13:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: irrelevant Re: ship production Today you cannot halt construction of a ship until it begins costing you shipbuilding points. This has two downsides: even if you have no intention to complete a particular ship, that ship will always cost you for at least one day's construction before you can turn it off you must either visit the ship availability track every day or else keep a detailed list of when ships start burning points in order to minimize wastage of shipbuilding points Has any consideration been given to making it possible to halt construction of a ship at any time, i.e. before it started burning SBPs? So an IJ player could go thru the ship availability list one time to turn off every one of the ships he was certain that he would never build? Question apparently got lost in the AK discussion.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 9:47:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown The view I take is that the USA gave priority to those areas of production that it thought were necessary, depending on the situation in the war. Amd that they had the capability to change that priority as circumstances changed. They did not, in my opinion, cast their production schedules in stone at the start of the war and refuse to vary them regardless of their needs. Taking this further, it is also my view that if the US had lost fewer CVs, they would have slowed later CV production more than they actually did (and it did slow later in the war). If they lost more CVs, it is my view that they would have made even more effort to complete and commission the CVs they did build earlier than they managed to do. Removing respawning of CVs only makes sense if you believe that the USA would stick to a rigid, fixed building schedule from the start of the war without any later changes due to unfolding events or needs. That is why CV respawning makes sense to me. Andrew Well, at least that's a reason. Can't say I agree with it (especially when as Jim Burns pointed out the US went ahead and completed 10 Essex's that didn't see action in WW II), but it's certainly a way of looking at it. Hopefully we can bring you "into the light" with enough persuasion.

jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/27/2007 9:55:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: irrelevant quote: ORIGINAL: irrelevant Re: ship production Today you cannot halt construction of a ship until it begins costing you shipbuilding points. This has two downsides: even if you have no intention to complete a particular ship, that ship will always cost you for at least one day's construction before you can turn it off you must either visit the ship availability track every day or else keep a detailed list of when ships start burning points in order to minimize wastage of shipbuilding points Has any consideration been given to making it possible to halt construction of a ship at any time, i.e. before it started burning SBPs? So an IJ player could go thru the ship availability list one time to turn off every one of the ships he was certain that he would never build? Question apparently got lost in the AK discussion. I understand the usefulness as I myself find that I have to go back over and over again and turn off the subs and the AK and the AP, while I patiently wait for them to accumulate enough "days" to where they are "turn-off-a-ble". But, this would stop them from advancing period, even though pre-laid-down ships aren't burning points. So it would be a "never build" type of decision. Maybe as an alternative, we could just start all the "not-laid-downs" as "halted" and then you could go through the list and turn them on. Well, we will cogitate on this a bit more, thx.

Andrew Brown -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/28/2007 2:34:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs I disagree it requires presuming that level of rigidity. I think that if there is no change at all to the CV production, regardless of the situation in the game, then that is definitely rigid. quote: As I mentioned, if anything, the last 4 (or fewer) Essex's would have been the ones slowed or 'de'-spawned, not earlier ones that would make a much bigger difference to the war effort. That might have been the case, but unless the "respawn" delay is increased, this can't really be simulated by OOB changes alone. Furthermore it is my belief that the earlier Essex's could also have been accelerated, although not by as much as the later ones, that took longer to build. quote: Also, alas, there is no provision for production or spawning to be modified based on the real conduct of the war going well or not - the capture of bases close to Japan for bombing and eventual invasion. That is true. However I prefer a limited simulation of Allied production in place of no simulation at all. quote: Yes, Andrew we are trying to convince you and win you over to our side of this argument! [:)] You are welcome to try. quote: Besides, having a 'spawning' rule makes it sound like there should be a bunch of baby flattops running around! [&:] I agree! In fact "respawning" is a poor description. I would prefer something like "accelerated CV production". Andrew

Andrew Brown -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/28/2007 2:39:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: okami The repawn rule makes no historical sense. Yes the US would have increased their carrier production in the face of catastrophic carrier loses, but historically they lost 4 of their original 6 carriers in 1942-43. Slipway limitations can not be ignored, they only had so many. That is true - slipway limitations cannot be ignored. However when I looked at the production data it seemed possible to account for increased CV production to account for up to 6 lost CVs, without requiring any extra slipways. quote: Yes they could have built more but this is not modelled in the game. It is (in a crude way) if you use "respawn". quote: Respawned carriers are free, they have no cost and delay no other naval construction. In the game that is true of all Allied ship production. quote: If respawn stopped the construction of a like number of vessels then it would be more palidable to those of us who look at it's ahistorical effects. I believe that through accelerated build times it was possible to provide up to 6 extra CVs, without stopping the production of other ships. I don't see it as ahistorical at all. Andrew

Andrew Brown -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/28/2007 2:41:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner I'd say the "Best" way to deal with this problem is giving the players the option to chose "respawn" on or off at the beginning of their games. If set to "on" the respawn acts as it does right now. If set to "off" the essex CVs come as scheldued, with other names, no matter if you lose the respwanable carriers or not. I agree!

witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/28/2007 3:01:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Yes, Andrew we are trying to convince you and win you over to our side of this argument! [:)] You are welcome to try. You are feeling sleepy, very sleepy ... [image]local://upfiles/14248/E5D9307B5C154B4BB1FE373614772519.jpg[/image]

okami -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/28/2007 3:18:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Yes, Andrew we are trying to convince you and win you over to our side of this argument! [:)] You are welcome to try. You are feeling sleepy, very sleepy ... [image]local://upfiles/14248/E5D9307B5C154B4BB1FE373614772519.jpg[/image] i would point out that hypnotising Andrew may decrease his work efficiency and thus delay AE. Mmmm..... Donut......[:-]

Page: << < prev 22 23 [24] 25 26 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8115234