RE: 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

mongo -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/20/2004 2:59:01 AM)

I believe the entire US economy was starting to turn away from war production by the end of 44/ beginning of 45.

It's not inconceivable that shipyard production could be ramped up.



Charles2222 -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/20/2004 3:00:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

quote:

Just for the record, the CA respawn rule also includes CLs.


Manual 5 x Fbastos 0...

"An American or Australian CA that is sunk prior to 1944 will be replaced..."
/Sigh

F.


Oh great, why not throw in English ships as well? I guess those Australian shipping grounds must've had a lot of open slots. Man, talk about an Aliied fanboy rule gone mad!!!! And as I think I said before, as I was intent on playing both sides, this bothers me more as a perspective Allied player than as a Japanese one. This needs a toggle more than anything has needed a toggle. I feel like the whole game has just been massively torpedoed; it's awful.[sm=nono.gif]



Brausepaul -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/20/2004 3:06:26 AM)

Even for simplicity it would be much better if this rule was dropped: just make a sequence of reinforcements/replacements and, if possible, a namecheck, so that new CVs, CAs etc... could get names of sunken predecessors.



Svar -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/20/2004 5:30:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
Pitiful, truly pitiful (respawning twice) as though virtually 1/2 the fleet can respawn isn't bad enough. This may be enough to make me quit the game forever.


I wouldn't get too excited about Lexington being respawned twice, it was the 5th Essex class CV respawned so those together with the 13 original Essex class CVs still only amount to 18 and there were 19 built during the timeframe of this game. The 'last' Lexington entered the game on 4/28/45 without its fighters again just like all the other respawned CVs which could have led to sinking of the Essex class Lexington in the first place. I thought that having the carrier trained squadrons assigned to the West Coast was keeping the SF based VFs from joining the respawned CVs when they arrived at SF but for the second Lexington the AI reassigned VF-2 to the Central Pacific and sent it to Hilo. When I check the last save (7/28/45) the Lexington was operating south of Iwo Jima and VF-2 was still in Hilo, apparently the Lady Lex just sailed right past without reboarding her fighter squadron. Since there is some kind of bug keeping those CVs that don't enter the game with VBF squadrons from ever acquiring them, the Lexington is operating with 33 A/C.



Charles2222 -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/20/2004 7:31:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Svar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
Pitiful, truly pitiful (respawning twice) as though virtually 1/2 the fleet can respawn isn't bad enough. This may be enough to make me quit the game forever.


I wouldn't get too excited about Lexington being respawned twice, it was the 5th Essex class CV respawned so those together with the 13 original Essex class CVs still only amount to 18 and there were 19 built during the timeframe of this game. The 'last' Lexington entered the game on 4/28/45 without its fighters again just like all the other respawned CVs which could have led to sinking of the Essex class Lexington in the first place. I thought that having the carrier trained squadrons assigned to the West Coast was keeping the SF based VFs from joining the respawned CVs when they arrived at SF but for the second Lexington the AI reassigned VF-2 to the Central Pacific and sent it to Hilo. When I check the last save (7/28/45) the Lexington was operating south of Iwo Jima and VF-2 was still in Hilo, apparently the Lady Lex just sailed right past without reboarding her fighter squadron. Since there is some kind of bug keeping those CVs that don't enter the game with VBF squadrons from ever acquiring them, the Lexington is operating with 33 A/C.


Well it's pretty dumb in either event, isn't it? Although I'll take a free carrier with 33 AC any day of the week, assuming I like to play in somewhat reduced cakewalk mode that is. Unfortunately as things stand, it can't be turned off whether you like it or not. There better be a toggle for this nonsense or WITP is history for me. It also puts a massive damper on me paying good money for any future GG games too, as I'll have to peruse the forums for a good long while to see if this sort of thing crops up in those games without a toggle.



tsimmonds -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/20/2004 7:39:57 PM)

quote:

There better be a toggle for this nonsense or WITP is history for me.


Why overreact? Just find a PBEM opponent who will agree not to use them. Anyway, if you are giving him fleets full of "free" ships, it is because you are giving him a royal bunny-stomping. This is not such as big deal as everyone seems to want to make it.



Charles2222 -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/20/2004 10:47:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

There better be a toggle for this nonsense or WITP is history for me.


Why overreact? Just find a PBEM opponent who will agree not to use them. Anyway, if you are giving him fleets full of "free" ships, it is because you are giving him a royal bunny-stomping. This is not such as big deal as everyone seems to want to make it.


I don't PBEM, and frankly I doubt the sanity of someone who would actually think they would have the vigor to finish it (It's the WORST example of trying to play something multi-player in the history of gaming, needless to say). I'm not even convinced I would finish it myself against the AI, as I don't recall that I even finished PW against the AI, so yeah, no help there. I'm determined to try, in fact I restarted my campaign like so many others did with the new patch (which will inevitably be restarted with the patch after that).

Part of the idea with Japan, is to try to at least keep the carrier edge since you started with one. If the Allies get them replaced all the time what's the point? Not everyone gets a whole lot of satisfaction off some mere point boost for having more targets to hit.

If as an Ally, I don't really lose the CV's/CA's/CL's but just puts them in statis for a bit, what kind of loss is that. It seems that at least the morale of the naval units for the losing nations with these type of ships, should go down.



Nikademus -> RE: Against the unfair ressuscitation of allied ships! (8/20/2004 11:09:55 PM)

I've often mussed if the VP for ships should not be more steep in order to curb aggressiveness. Maybe even a PP penalty for certain types. (capital ship....merchants etc)

Of course the type of ship that is used the most as a "throwaway" are the merchants. Yet in reality they are the heart of any maritime power.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.78125