RE: Why the CV replacement rule is not worth worrying about (Full Version)

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



Message


Svar -> RE: Why the CV replacement rule is not worth worrying about (8/21/2004 8:25:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonmoltke
The problem with that is that only the Essex was laid down before the war. CV-10, the future Yorktown II, was laid down after the war started. From here on, Japan was an oviosu threat, and the ships were being laid down at a rate of one every 1-2 months. Any discussion of how Japan was perceived before the war is moot with regard to the Essex program.


Ship Keel laid
CV-10 12/1/41
CV-11 12/1/41
CV-16 7/15/41
CV-17 9/15/41

Counting CV-9 that is 5 Essex class CV keels laid before the war and the first 11 Essex class CVs were authorized in 1940.




freeboy -> RE: Why the CV replacement rule is not worth worrying about (8/21/2004 8:38:07 AM)

If the IJN does so well as to sink these fleats, they should be overjoyed they respawn, more points to sink....
If we could add a toggle, then those cv,s would be worth a ton more in reallity if not points.

Consider as the IJN commander I know that killing any cv's in 42 gets them respawned.. so what, I need these points to win anyway, and the US will have lots of assets by mid 44
a few more won't make a big deal... so if you haven't "won" a points victory, then we are looking at the "survivor" victory... just survive and you win...
After all it would be a minor merical for a pbem game to go all throught the war.. but a game agains the ai might... if a person forgoes a life lol




fbastos -> RE: Why the CV replacement rule is not worth worrying about (8/21/2004 8:51:51 AM)

quote:

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.


Excellent point, moses. That's precisely why I don't play as Japanese.

/salute
F.




Cmdrcain -> RE: Why the CV replacement rule is not worth worrying about (8/21/2004 9:14:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

But that is exactly the point Ron. That is pretty much exactly what the USA thought of them. Had they actually had any fear whatsoever of Japan, the USA would have ramped up their production levels back when Japan refused to be party to the Naval Accords years before the war and started th war with double the number of BB's and CV's and 50 times the number of aircraft they had. [:D]

The only conclusion one can draw from pre-war posturing was that the USA clearly thought them to be laughable and simply thought that some sanctions would make those "silly little yellow guys" knuckle under with nothing else needed.



Hummm a Scenario to make, where Japan , Britan and USa fail to agree and so all build up... humm you would have to allow for Japan to build More ships, more yamatos a few more CV's but would the USA have built more carriers?

Wouldn't been actually more US Battleships and cruisers built, it wasn't till the Battleship fleet was sunk in PH that the Carrier proponents got their way and as success occured the USa built even more carriers..


You probably could add a few more carriers early, but They would possiable be more Yorktown or Wasp class or Lexington class, but the main increase would have to be those BB's and cruisers which until PH were still seen as the Main Fleet ships to have.

I'd also have those extra Bb's and Cruisers based at Manilia as asiatic fleet, wasn't it that the USA pulled the fleet back in part to not bother the japanese besides not building up the phillipine defenses i late 30's for same reason... to mollify the japanese?




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Why the CV replacement rule is not worth worrying about (8/21/2004 9:29:54 AM)

And let's not forget that the US was just coming out the the Great Depression at this time as well, so starting the build up in 1940's is not necessarily linked to a disdain of the Japanese threat.




timtom -> RE: Why the CV replacement rule is not worth worrying about (8/21/2004 4:15:10 PM)

I fail to see how the "how's & why's" are relevant to this discussion. It's an uncontestable fact that they were built. All other reinforcement are given on the basis that if it floats, you get it. Witness the scramble in the forum to cram obscure units like RAN PG's into the OOB. But four CV's you cant get cause someone went and changed their names.




Charles2222 -> RE: Why the CV replacement rule is not worth worrying about (8/21/2004 4:18:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

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.


Forgive me, but IMHO CAs and CLs are basically irrelevant. You can have 5 of them or fifty, and it won't make any difference in the outcome. After 1/1/44 they are little more than auxiliaries, mere AAA platforms.


If they're irrelevant, irrelevant, then why not just give them all to the Japanese? They're more than happy for irrelevant AA I can assure you.




Charles2222 -> RE: Why the CV replacement rule is not worth worrying about (8/21/2004 4:43:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

If the IJN does so well as to sink these fleats, they should be overjoyed they respawn, more points to sink....
If we could add a toggle, then those cv,s would be worth a ton more in reallity if not points.

Consider as the IJN commander I know that killing any cv's in 42 gets them respawned.. so what, I need these points to win anyway, and the US will have lots of assets by mid 44
a few more won't make a big deal... so if you haven't "won" a points victory, then we are looking at the "survivor" victory... just survive and you win...
After all it would be a minor merical for a pbem game to go all throught the war.. but a game agains the ai might... if a person forgoes a life lol


When you're trying to survive, and you're in for a rough go, that's when you don't mind that the enemy gets to respawn??? Seems the one with the easy victory would be the one with less concern fro permanent losses. I want my opponent to pay, and myself pay as well for EVERY little loss. Sure points are one thing, but that's more abstract. If I wipe up the floor with them I want to enjoy the fruits as they should be militarily too, not some DOOM respawn festival. The only place I think this idea of respawning should be, is where the realm of fantasy is, post VJ day, for at that point it could be nothing but fantasy. Naturally both sides (especially the loser), even during the historic part should have some fantasy elements such as invading different places and some upgrading, but respawning 3 entire classes of ships is just ludicrous. From what I saw of another thread, the same ship can even respawn more than once! IOW, it appears as though every single ship of those 3 classes, no matter how many times they sink before '44, will always come back. And this is a wargame?????? If there was a limit where at least JA would make some headway instead of them always getting replaced it would make a 'bit' of sense, but like I said before, as-is this is pretty much a one-sided street, where something good JA does is rewarded to the Allies in a sense. There is no equivalent for JA in this game at all. Just what happens to JA if they lose half their carriers early on, or have substantially greater victories? JA can knock out every CV/CL/CA from OZ and the USN, and just have those ships off the map for a time, and seemingly limitless at that, although I suppose with the building time you probably couldn't have a ship go through more then 4 incarnations during the game.




tsimmonds -> RE: Why the CV replacement rule is not worth worrying about (8/21/2004 4:56:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

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.


Forgive me, but IMHO CAs and CLs are basically irrelevant. You can have 5 of them or fifty, and it won't make any difference in the outcome. After 1/1/44 they are little more than auxiliaries, mere AAA platforms.


If they're irrelevant, irrelevant, then why not just give them all to the Japanese? They're more than happy for irrelevant AA I can assure you.

I'm talking about for the allied player. After a point there are only so many cruisers that he can use. Of course IJN could always use more. But that's hardly the point, is it? IJN is not going to get more. And check out my banner BTW, I am the Japanese. I just can't see how any of this will make any material difference in any game I may play, whether PBEM or vs the AI.




Charles2222 -> RE: Why the CV replacement rule is not worth worrying about (8/21/2004 4:59:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

I fail to see how the "how's & why's" are relevant to this discussion. It's an uncontestable fact that they were built. All other reinforcement are given on the basis that if it floats, you get it. Witness the scramble in the forum to cram obscure units like RAN PG's into the OOB. But four CV's you cant get cause someone went and changed their names.


So how do ALL the CA/CL (and probably CLAA's too) of BOTH the USN and OZ amount to just 4 CV's??? We've already heard about a CV respawning "more than once", so how is that 4 CV's? Some of you don't just seem to understand the grandeur of this. It's not just 4 CV's by any means. It's basically a guarantee that when the latter part of the war comes around, the Allied South Pacific fleet will be at full strength.




tsimmonds -> RE: Why the CV replacement rule is not worth worrying about (8/21/2004 5:10:51 PM)

quote:

There is no equivalent for JA in this game at all. Just what happens to JA if they lose half their carriers early on, or have substantially greater victories?


Charles, you are still missing the point of this rule. It is in the game as much to help the Japanese player as it is for the allies. Assume that the CVs arrive per the historical schedule. The allied player knows precisely how powerful he will be on Jan 1, 1944. He knows how powerful the IJN will be. He knows that if he fights in 1942 he will be at a disadvantage. So he decides to sit back and wait until his strength arrives. There is nothing to say no to this. There is no reason not to do it; in fact, I submit it would be foolish to do otherwise. Japan wins on points you say? I'm not so sure. Japan needs more points than he can just scoop up in bases; I feel certain that he needs a significant number of points from destroying men and materiel to get a 3 to 1.

This rule benefits Japan as much as it does the allies. How else do you explain that people from both sides are howling about it? It discourages the allied player from sitting back and waiting, while affording him some protection against the catastrophic early losses he must risk to oppose an IJN player (who will almost certainly be more competent than IRL), losses which would surely have been made good had they actually been incurred. If we would all consider for a moment the benefits rather than just complaining that it is ahistorical, or that the benefit is one-sided, perhaps we could appreciate the elegance of this single solution to two very different problems.




Charles2222 -> RE: Why the CV replacement rule is not worth worrying about (8/21/2004 5:13:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

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.


Forgive me, but IMHO CAs and CLs are basically irrelevant. You can have 5 of them or fifty, and it won't make any difference in the outcome. After 1/1/44 they are little more than auxiliaries, mere AAA platforms.


If they're irrelevant, irrelevant, then why not just give them all to the Japanese? They're more than happy for irrelevant AA I can assure you.

I'm talking about for the allied player. After a point there are only so many cruisers that he can use. Of course IJN could always use more. But that's hardly the point, is it? IJN is not going to get more. And check out my banner BTW, I am the Japanese. I just can't see how any of this will make any material difference in any game I may play, whether PBEM or vs the AI.


Well obviously the DD's and BB's are irrelevant too, so why not throw them in? When you play chess, do you give the queen and knights back to the opponent after so many turns have passed since they were taken? THE most important unit on this game can respwn for the Allies, whereas the third most important surface unit (and the 4th) can respawn too?

For some of you (maybe not you irrelevant) this will be difficult, but the exact same situation exists somewhere else in the war, and I dar guess the majority of you would see the point in that case, since you might just be playing the Allies then too. Imagine Germany in France, or in the USSR, and she suffers a lot of losses. Does she then get to go to "total war" earlier because they could have? It's the exact same thing, a clause for a nation that could've geared up more, gearing up more because they did poorly. Any takers?




timtom -> RE: Why the CV replacement rule is not worth worrying about (8/21/2004 5:55:04 PM)

quote:

The allied player knows precisely how powerful he will be on Jan 1, 1944.


With or without respawn, the Allied player will be overwhelmingly powerful at this point.

quote:

He knows that if he fights in 1942 he will be at a disadvantage. So he decides to sit back and wait until his strength arrives.


Can't wait to see the first Allied PBEM player going 700+ turns doing squat [>:]. My bet is that most players will try to fight along historical lines[;)].

quote:

It discourages the allied player from sitting back and waiting


If the argument goes that the pace and volume of reinforcements encourages conservative play on the side of the Allied, then it follows that the whole system ought to be shook up and ties to some kind of historical phase line or some other kind of penalty.

Anyway, Allied 1944 preponderance is such that respawning (or not) wont make a difference to the viability to "hoard-'nd-wait" strategy.

If it is felt that respawning is necessary to encourage an aggressive Allied strategy, then can not the reverse argument be made? If the AAR's are anything to go by, the Allied players use their CV's very aggressively from the get-go, and more so than was historically the case.

This is ultimately a design issue, but as far as Im concerned, I want a game that models history as close as possible, not some kind of HOI clone.




Charles2222 -> RE: Why the CV replacement rule is not worth worrying about (8/21/2004 5:56:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

There is no equivalent for JA in this game at all. Just what happens to JA if they lose half their carriers early on, or have substantially greater victories?


Charles, you are still missing the point of this rule. It is in the game as much to help the Japanese player as it is for the allies. Assume that the CVs arrive per the historical schedule. The allied player knows precisely how powerful he will be on Jan 1, 1944. He knows how powerful the IJN will be. He knows that if he fights in 1942 he will be at a disadvantage. So he decides to sit back and wait until his strength arrives. There is nothing to say no to this. There is no reason not to do it; in fact, I submit it would be foolish to do otherwise. Japan wins on points you say? I'm not so sure. Japan needs more points than he can just scoop up in bases; I feel certain that he needs a significant number of points from destroying men and materiel to get a 3 to 1.

This rule benefits Japan as much as it does the allies. How else do you explain that people from both sides are howling about it? It discourages the allied player from sitting back and waiting, while affording him some protection against the catastrophic early losses he must risk to oppose an IJN player (who will almost certainly be more competent than IRL), losses which would surely have been made good had they actually been incurred. If we would all consider for a moment the benefits rather than just complaining that it is ahistorical, or that the benefit is one-sided, perhaps we could appreciate the elegance of this single solution to two very different problems.


I argued from the Allied perspective "against" it too, for I don't want an easy street. I see now where the supporters are coming from, thank you very much, as I hadn't considered the VP point of this. Of course, if I straggle the game out to it's full course as the Japanese, as I expect to do (for the sake of experimentation if nothing else), then I want to see removed forever what I have destroyed. My hope is to at least keep winning victories over the Allied carriers while I have numbers, to at least have carrier parity late in the war. Quite impossible as things stand; respawning destroys that. It's obvious that can never work, but adding the CA/CL and probably CLAA's as well the quotient is beyond the pale. I keep wondering why the BB's, DD"s, and subs were skipped on this, and then I remember that it's ludicrous enough already.

Fine I understand the VP side of things, as I didn't realize that JA getting the losses was so badly needed as well, but, as you can see, the fictional VP side of things, you'd hope, was made to give JA a chance, but making this sort of adjustment destroys the type of game I'm trying to play; something more historic. I really believe you can fight militarily well with Japan and at least last as long as '45, but with respawning that possibility is out the window.

There were two different strategies for Japan: either win all really early or fight well and hold on. In my mind the latter was the more achievable, as losses to the US might've ended in at least an armistice. I don't really think super great early victories would've beaten the US (apart from invading, somehow, successfully the US mainland), and that only resorting to inflicting maximum damage over time would.

I realize gamewise there's no chance for Japan to get an armistice past '43 should she inflict so many losses, but I want to play that way anyway. If the US was going to give up, it surely wouldn't have been before '43 IMO, so therefore my only course of semi-victory is to inflict maximum loss. If the ships keep coming back there's little or no point. If I play as Allied I have it too easy too. I'm playing militarily not VP-ly.

Maybe that's the whole flaw with this game in my view, that the game was determined to give Japan it's chance for victory early instead of late. That point were more important then inflicting losses on the enemy. And before you say it, no, having "more ships to destroy" doesn't work. The idea is to work diligently enough to always keep some edge to still inflict high casualties, when so many ships are repspawning, the very time of the war where the losses I'm inflicting should really start adding up, I'm instead thrown into a series of ships that never really sink syndrome, to where I can't see how well my generalship has worked, but, militarily, seem as though I achieved nothing. Hoping all along to be on a par at that time, instead to find I'm at the role of a partisan.

Of course, having said all of that, I have no idea what impact the A-bomb will have even if I am very successful when Japanese (of course historically there were only two) to my miltary loss inflicting strategy.

I just can't get my head wrapped around the idea that this IMO, suedo-secondary method of playing the game (early points for JA) has tilted this game so massively against the military way of doing it. I never would've believed it before.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.71875