Ron Saueracker -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 7:09:14 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote:
ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi the USN can lose 4 CV but it can never throw even 1 away. If they don't lose four to Japan they lose 4 actual Essex class CV that did fight in the war. (but they give or deny Japan 2000 VP depending) There is no plus side to this rule for the USN. (since if they got only historical ships and didn't lose any they would have 4 more. They only get 4 Essex that actually fought if they lose 4 other CV.) If you really examine this rule it's not that the USN should lose 4 it's the IJN should not sink four. (because the replacements are better) As the IJN you want to damage CV not sink them. (and put the USN player in the weird position of having to scuttle a CV that he might otherwise save )[X(] After turn 1100 it is ok to sink as many USN CV as you can. It's a lost cause, MOGAMI. No hard-core Japanese Fan-Boy is ever going to believe than the "re-spawning rule" is anything but a plot against his fantasies. These people are so out of touch with reality they keep thinking that Japan SHOULD be able to win the war for real (not just in game terms). They also believe in the HISTORY CHANNEL. And probably in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny as well. I loathe the decision to revisit the respawning feature after it was so disliked in PacWar. And I'm an Allied Fanboy I guess one could say. I don't know if it hurts Japan as much as the Allies. All ships in USN that were named after ships historically lost early on and served in the PTO during the period covered by the game have been ommitted. Here is the list with month of arrival (includes a 2-3 month shakedown)... Essex Class CVs: Yorktown II CV10 May/43 (ex Bon Homme Richard) Hornet II CV12 Dec/43 (ex Kearsarge) Lexington II CV16 Mar/43 (ex Cabot) Wasp II CV18 Dec/43 (ex Oriskany) Baltimore Class CAs: Canberra II CA70 Nov/43 (ex Pittsburg) Quincy II CA 71 Jan/44 (ex St. Paul) Cleveland Class CLs: Vincennes II CL 64 Feb/44 (ex Flint) Houston II CL 81 Jan/44 (ex Vicksburg) Astoria II CL 90 Jun/44 (ex Wilkes-Barre) Atlanta II CL 104 Jan/45 Balao Class SSs: Perch II SS 313 Jan/44 Shark II SS 314 Feb/44 Sealion II SS 315 Mar/44 Tench Class SSs: Runner II SS 476 Feb/45 Fletcher Class DDs: Preston II DD 795 Apr/44 Benham II DD 796 Mar/44 Cushing II DD 797 Jul/44 Monssen II DD 798 Apr/44 Jarvis II DD 799 Aug/44 Porter II DD 800 Aug/44 Colhoun II DD 801 Sep/44 Gregory II DD 802 Sep/44 Little II DD 803 Nov/44 Sumner Class DDs: Barton II DD 722 Sep/44 Walke II DD 723 Sep/44 Laffey II DD 724 Sep/44 O'Brien II DD 725 Sep/44 Meredith II DD 726 Sep/44 DeHaven II DD 727 Jul/44 Blue II DD 744 Jul/44 Strong II DD 758 May/45 Sumner Class DMs: Gwin II DM 33 Aaron Ward II DM 34 Gearing Class DDs: McKean II DD 784 Chevalier II DD 805 Perkins II DD 877 Edsall Class DEs: Edsall II DE 129 Jul/45 Hammann II DE 131 Jul/45 Stewart II DE 238 Jul/45 Buckley Class DEs: Sims II DE 154 Jan/45 The CVs, CAs and CLs are only in the OOB in a scenario if the namesake is not...needless to say, they are not in the full length scenario. Whats worse, the destroyers, destroyer minelayers, destroyer escorts and subs are not in the game at all. Look at the list folks. If formed into a task force it is the equal, if not more powerful, than Kudo Butai which hit Pearl Harbor![X(] The implications of the spawning feature are profound. Look at the arrival dates for the spawnable ships types (CVs, CAs, CLs). Most are the early units of the class so if the namesake is not sunk, the spawning rule assumes the actual hull number never existed. Unless the Allied player loses his namesake vessels early, he is penalized in that he receives the vessel later than the actual date. Worse still, if the Allied player is fortunate(?) enough to keep the namesake afloat, he is brutally penalized by losing the hulls which were historically available to him. So, boys and girls....the Allied player is equally, perhaps more unjustly penalized by the spawning feature. All to avoid duplication of ship names. Makes many of the OOB issues pale in comparison does it not?
|
|
|
|