Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

fbastos -> Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 3:26:43 AM)

Folks,

I don't really agree on ressuscitating sunk allied ships (CV,CA). The shipyards were already maxed out producing the ships they produced, so it's just impossible to have these ships as extra production for free.

Also, American production is so immense that such unnatural rebirths are an unfair and unnecessary advantage.

I say that otherwordly ship cloning must be eliminated - or at the very least changed to mean a request from the Atlantic ocean, and make the player pay huge political costs (say it 5,000 points) to request a major unit to replace one that he lost.

The way it is, it makes great sense to go and sink Enterprise , Hornet and Yorktown by 1943 to have them back as much better Essexes...

F.



WiTP_Dude -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 3:30:55 AM)

Some have argued the other way, that they should get the extra ships whether or not the early models are sunk. I guess this is a comprise between the two factions. [:)]



SeaWolF K -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 3:38:10 AM)

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) that are not in the database. I would like a scen where the allies get the all the hulls they did historically when they arrived without regaurd to losses. However, a while back it was stated that this was not changing.



Cmdrcain -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 3:57:06 AM)

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) that are not in the database. I would like a scen where the allies get the all the hulls they did historically when they arrived without regaurd to losses. However, a while back it was stated that this was not changing.



In original Pacific war game this is remake of, same thing was built in
if original starting carriers got sunk they came back as Essex

As noted it isn't like the USa started building a New Enterprise or Yorktown when original got sunk, they were building carriers that were to be named otherwise and so they would have appeared if the originals got sunk or not.

The fact is if the originals are not sunk, the US/allied player doesn't get the essex types of those names even through in reality if they had not been sunk, there still would been the essex carriers albet named something else so actually, if allied player doesn't lose starting carriers, then the allied player has several LESS essex carriers.

There is no real gain in game in Carrier numbers, in reality if the US had lost no carriers, then there would been MORE essex carriers plus the Older ones still in action.

In game if dont lose old carriers, you unrealistically don't get MORE carriers as would hae occured in reality, the Essex carriers Yorktown etc in such a reality would have appeared but with different names originally intended for them.



Farfarer61 -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 3:59:35 AM)

[:@]Really? I remember playtesting the completely reworked Pac War OB's ( a lot of work) which got rid of that problem.

Why would it be deliberately unfixed ( un *****) in a new game



Cmdrcain -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 4:09:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Farfarer

[:@]Really? I remember playtesting the completely reworked Pac War OB's ( a lot of work) which got rid of that problem.

Why would it be deliberately unfixed ( un *****) in a new game



Pacific war DOS was hardcoded to replace the starting Carriers with Essex named returning as replacements xxx days after sunk.

I don't recall the old Dos games reworking taking that out.

For clarity sake Pacific war = old dos original, WITP = THis new remake

Which you work on?



Cmdrcain -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 4:27:34 AM)

Btw I really see it ridiculous complaining if the originals come back as essex... IF a previous set building essex is simply coded to be renamed
for the Lost Carrier.

If however the sunk comeback as essex PLUS the laid essex hulls come out as the CV's that were in reality renamed then I can see the complaint.

But thats the question, are the Original Essex hulls being renamed?


To make point:


USA had Enterprise,Yorktown,Hornet,Saratoga,Wasp at start.

5 CV

so 5 Originals

Say 15 essex hulls laid

If No originals sunk then USA would have 5 Plus the 15 new essex
=20 CV

If 3 Sunk then 3 of the Essex laid get names changed.

Then USA has 2 plus 15 = 17 CV's

I havent looked in deep, is it that the code simply is bringing the sunk back as essex plus the carriers laid to be built or is the code bringing back the sunk as essex and perhaps 9999'ing The Cv's that would been originally built?

I suppose if they coded it so sunk comeback as essex Plus also all the essex that were laid then allowing sink you get more essex
can any of the developers settle this question?


Seems to me that the keels/hulls for the original essex should indeed be in game but code there to "9999" them and bring back the Sunk
in place of them or simply code to Rename such Hulls for the Sunk ships... if possiable, If not sunk the original essex with the original intended name SHOULD appear like If the Yorktowns not sunk then the essex with its ORIGINAL name intended should appear not the Yorktown Essex class, since the original Yorktowns still there.

Really, in reality the Essex's replacing sunk were already being built and would been built but under a different name... If No orignals got sunk... giving USA even MORE CV's.



fbastos -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 4:31:47 AM)

If someone sinks every single carrier and cruiser that the Americans have in 1943 (make it about 40 ships or so), not only they all will be back 550 days later, but the regular reinforcements will also come. That's very unhistorical.

I think a more balanced approach would be to have the historical replacement units in the database (have separate entries for a Yorktown-class Hornet and an Essex-class Hornet II), let them come as they did under historical situation, and just let the dead ships die.

Now, one could argue that if the Americans lost all the carriers, then the could would have gone to a Herculean effort and not only build all the ships they did, but also built twice the tonnage lost. This is hypotethical and not really necessary, as the Americans have so many replacements already.

C'mon, let's give the Japanese a chance to kick some butt. The game is VERY biased already on giving tons of advantages for the Allied, so why not give some little hope for the Japanese player?



2ndACR -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 4:35:22 AM)

Ain't gonna happen. The Betas will argue against it. The IJN in history could not sink every CV the allies produced, so the player of this "game" is condemned to repeat history. No changing history allowed.


I should have said "some" Betas.



Charles2222 -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 4:41:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

If someone sinks every single carrier and cruiser that the Americans have in 1943 (make it about 40 ships or so), not only they all will be back 550 days later, but the regular reinforcements will also come. That's very unhistorical.

I think a more balanced approach would be to have the historical replacement units in the database (have separate entries for a Yorktown-class Hornet and an Essex-class Hornet II), let them come as they did under historical situation, and just let the dead ships die.

Now, one could argue that if the Americans lost all the carriers, then the could would have gone to a Herculean effort and not only build all the ships they did, but also built twice the tonnage lost. This is hypotethical and not really necessary, as the Americans have so many replacements already.

C'mon, let's give the Japanese a chance to kick some butt. The game is VERY biased already on giving tons of advantages for the Allied, so why not give some little hope for the Japanese player?


I agree, as I think you're reading the rules correctly. It's about as dumb as saying that if the Zero did awful at PH then the advanced aircraft jump three years in availability. I guess they didn't throw DD's into the magic category because they won't win the game. If they had used the DD's stupidly and lost the majority of them, then wouldn't they build double the tonnage lost? That seems to be the logic. Frankly I would be embarassed to play the Allies with such an easy street.



Wilhammer -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 4:47:52 AM)

Since these get replaced NO MATTER what, the Americans should practice Kamikaze with these things in 1942 - to NOT lose them in action would be economically stupid.



fbastos -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 4:50:00 AM)

Cmdrcairn got the crux of the question there. The long campaign database lists:

Lexington class: Lexington, Saratoga
Yorktown class: Yorktown, Enterprise, Hornet
Wasp class: Wasp
Essex class: Essex, Bunker Hill, Intrepid, Franklin, Hancock, Randolph, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Boxer, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La, Lake Champlain

The list of Essexes matches the historical list less Yorktown (II), Hornet (II), Wasp (II) and Lexington (II).

So, if you don't lose any carriers, you end up with 13 Essexes rather than 17. If you lose all the old carriers, you end up with 19 Essexes rather than 17.

If you lose all your boats up to Franklin (6 old carriers and 4 Essex), you end up with 10 cloned Essexes plus Hancock to Lake Champlain (9 ships), therefore the game will have given you 23 Essex instead of the historical 17.

That's impossible: the shipyards were completely stressed to build 17 Essex during WW2.. they couldn't have built 23 during the same period.

Regards
F.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 5:04:11 AM)

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.

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.



RUPD3658 -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 5:05:45 AM)

If the IJN sank that many US CVs the game would probobly end in instant victory before many of the lost ships got "cloned" and returned.

If the USN loses all 6 CVs in 1942 the IJN should take enough teritory to get the points to end the game.



Charles2222 -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 5:09:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

Cmdrcairn got the crux of the question there. The long campaign database lists:

Lexington class: Lexington, Saratoga
Yorktown class: Yorktown, Enterprise, Hornet
Wasp class: Wasp
Essex class: Essex, Bunker Hill, Intrepid, Franklin, Hancock, Randolph, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Boxer, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La, Lake Champlain

The list of Essexes matches the historical list less Yorktown (II), Hornet (II), Wasp (II) and Lexington (II).

So, if you don't lose any carriers, you end up with 13 Essexes rather than 17. If you lose all the old carriers, you end up with 19 Essexes rather than 17.

If you lose all your boats up to Franklin (6 old carriers and 4 Essex), you end up with 10 cloned Essexes plus Hancock to Lake Champlain (9 ships), therefore the game will have given you 23 Essex instead of the historical 17.

That's impossible: the shipyards were completely stressed to build 17 Essex during WW2.. they couldn't have built 23 during the same period.

Regards
F.


It's a good thing for the Japanese that they didn't get any carriers at PH!



2ndACR -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 5:13:39 AM)

The allies ONLY get over 100 CV, CVE, CVL why do they need anymore?



Cmdrcain -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 5:16:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

Cmdrcairn got the crux of the question there. The long campaign database lists:

Lexington class: Lexington, Saratoga
Yorktown class: Yorktown, Enterprise, Hornet
Wasp class: Wasp
Essex class: Essex, Bunker Hill, Intrepid, Franklin, Hancock, Randolph, Ticonderoga, Bennington, Boxer, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La, Lake Champlain

The list of Essexes matches the historical list less Yorktown (II), Hornet (II), Wasp (II) and Lexington (II).

So, if you don't lose any carriers, you end up with 13 Essexes rather than 17. If you lose all the old carriers, you end up with 19 Essexes rather than 17.

If you lose all your boats up to Franklin (6 old carriers and 4 Essex), you end up with 10 cloned Essexes plus Hancock to Lake Champlain (9 ships), therefore the game will have given you 23 Essex instead of the historical 17.

That's impossible: the shipyards were completely stressed to build 17 Essex during WW2.. they couldn't have built 23 during the same period.

Regards
F.


All the essex you list matchs the ones built, you have to however consider if the Yorktown wasn't sunk then that Yorktown II essex would STILL have been built but was originally intended be of another name then Yorktown.

17 essexes were laid down, irregardless of any old Cv sunk 17 still should showup.

Only 17 Essex should be in the Game.

If the Originals were not sunk then the 4 essex should showup with their original intended names.

If however any Original cv got sunk then any of the 4 essexs should
be coded to a name change, couldn't it be done?

Its a simple database change in a ships name, renaming those 4 essexs
But maybe it would been a bit problemic, if no originals sunk you get
still the 4 but what if one originals sunk like in 1945 after originals had survived till then.... at some point the 4 essex would have to be in game by then, too late to rename any fir the Original old CV's.

I don't see that there can be through more then 19 essex's, as it is you only get 13 plus any of the originals sunk coming back so thats 13 and up to 6=19 essex max.


I don't think that it should been coded that ESSEX sunk get replaced!

Only the Old CV should been coded to come back as Essex so 13 plus 6= max of 19 essex ever in game.

19 isn't that off from the 17 keels laid. 23 or more WOULD be too far an difference, so the code shouldn't include bringing back ESSEX class sunk... only The Old Class



tsimmonds -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 5:25:38 AM)

This topic has been thrashed utterly to death. Everyone who's upset by this, please read this thread, then come back and we'll talk.[;)] Well, maybe tomorrow we'll talk.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 5:29:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

The allies ONLY get over 100 CV, CVE, CVL why do they need anymore?


This is a totally inane point. How much the Allies could produce is something the
Japanese should have thought off BEFORE they started the war. The Allies get a
lot BECAUSE they built a lot. Had they decided in 1942 that even more CV's would
be needed, they could have cancelled some Iowa's, Alaska's, and Midway's and
turned out more Essex's. Kaiser could easily have kept building "Jeep CVE's" after
the initial 50 if a need was forseen. Plenty of Yardspace for that, as Merchant Ship
Production actually DECREASED by 50% between 1943 and 1944. The fact that you
think they have plenty is not an arguement..., just an opinion,



2ndACR -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 5:35:32 AM)

I know it was an inane point. Just wanted to say it. Got that I feel evil feeling.

Personally it does not matter to me whether the allies get more or not. Just watching all the "I hate this" threads popping up.



eMonticello -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 6:16:01 AM)

Has anyone pointed out that there were 26 Essex-class carriers that were laid and only 2 were cancelled?

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

This topic has been thrashed utterly to death. Everyone who's upset by this, please read this thread, then come back and we'll talk.[;)] Well, maybe tomorrow we'll talk.



Twotribes -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 6:25:24 AM)

So let me see if I have tis right..........

The Japanese should be allowed unrestricted submarine warfare, they should be allowed unrestricted attacks not based on actual events. Advances that were never contemplated for what ever reason. Aircraft builds ( via the scenario 26 version) that allow more and better aircraft then the Japanese built. Total hindsight to make attacks and plans based on what is known about allied lack of strength and allied build rates.

But even though in the other thread it was clearly shown that the space exsisted to start and build 24 essex by 1946 the US should be limited to 13 cause thats what they built? ( althouh that isnt true they built more than 13)



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 6:34:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
I should have said "some" Betas.


Thank you. I personally can't fathom the "spawning" feature. It basically "scraps" the ships historically named after those lost in the war. For example, if the US player is lucky or good enough to not lose the CVs Lexington (CV2), Yorktown (CV5), Wasp (CV7), Hornet (CV8) and many other ships, he/she is "punished" by having CVs 10, 12, 16, 18, and any of the other warships commissioned (under originally different names) in commemoration of lost ships to simply "poof" out of existance. For example, the Essexes mentioned (CVs 10, 12, 16, 18) were "actually" in various stages of construction under different names while CVs 2, 5, 7, and 8 were still afloat. But if the original namesakes stay afloat, the Essexes don't arrive under their original names! They are scrapped basically. All this to avoid the naming issue. Also tends to causesome players to"sacrifice" these ships in bizarre endeavours because it is beneficial to some degree for the player to lose them.

But! As I said, not all the Betas like it, but it's not our call in the final analysis. I own a bar and can't stand "new country" whining, hip hop gangster crap, cock or jock rock...the list goes on, and if any staff does not like it, they can work at some joint that does not provide a full health insurance plan.[;)]

Be nice if it was a toggable option though.[:D]



2ndACR -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 6:40:26 AM)

Went back earlier and re-read my post, did not like lumping everybody into the same boat.



Fallschirmjager -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 6:52:56 AM)

I dont like the idea of losing some 300 odd points when one is sunk.
Thats hard to make up.



Drongo -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 6:57:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Went back earlier and re-read my post, did not like lumping everybody into the same boat.


Thank you. The opinions will differ as much between betas as it does between the plebs.[;)]



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 7:18:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drongo

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Went back earlier and re-read my post, did not like lumping everybody into the same boat.


Thank you. The opinions will differ as much between betas as it does between the plebs.[;)]


I read somewhere that the Ausiies were upset with the US for using "Canberra" for a Baltimore class in honour of the County lost at Savo. I wonder if this is why the third Aussie Tribal was named Bataan...to snub the US? Did not work as an Independence was named Bataan anyway. I also wonder if the US felt they had to name a ship for Canberra as it has been adequately shown that USS Bagley accidently torpedoed the Canberra during the initial phase of the battle. This is not the Ellet assistingin the scuttling, Canberra was hit "during" the battle from Bagley's direction.



Drongo -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 7:43:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I also wonder if the US felt they had to name a ship for Canberra as it has been adequately shown that USS Bagley accidently torpedoed the Canberra during the initial phase of the battle. This is not the Ellet assistingin the scuttling, Canberra was hit "during" the battle from Bagley's direction.


We asked for the ship to be called USS "Ooops Sorry" but the idea didn't prove too popular.



fbastos -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 7:46:43 AM)

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.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/18/2004 7:49:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drongo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I also wonder if the US felt they had to name a ship for Canberra as it has been adequately shown that USS Bagley accidently torpedoed the Canberra during the initial phase of the battle. This is not the Ellet assistingin the scuttling, Canberra was hit "during" the battle from Bagley's direction.


We asked for the ship to be called USS "Ooops Sorry" but the idea didn't prove too popular.


[;)]



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
7.59375