RE: turning off the rule (Full Version)

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



Message

Ron Saueracker -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 2:06:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

@Taiyo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taiyo

@pasternakski:

not bitching just asking for help. if that is forbidden on this forum then sorry didn't mean to.



Pasternaki may [X(] have been a little harsh but you see some simple searching of forum woudl have given you this http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=690922&mpage=1&key=respawning - many many pages of the key arguments and fact that spawning is staying at moment as far the people who matter think ie the designers.


"many many pages of the key arguments and fact that spawning is staying at moment as far the people who matter think ie the designers."

Good thing a house rule and the honour system can circumvent it for the most part.



Taiyo -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 3:09:03 PM)

first of all, i was just asking if it is possible to turn it off somehow just to try out some other possibilities in the game. I wasn't even questioning the rule.

@Mike Scholl: i am an IJ fan boy but that does not mean that i want this game to be historically inacurate or something else. and i don't think that the congres would look kindly in the war years on stupid waste of ships and resources if any of the allied comanders made crucial mistakes. by turning this rule off that could be a new dimension in the game (like in UV with the scenario where Midway never happened and the IJN has all the CV lost there). and yes, i would like to play this game and believe that maybe Japan can win the war. otherwise, there would be no point in making the game where u know that if u play Japan, u have apsolutelly no chance of winning. then, this should be the game where everyone is trying to win as allies in shortest time possible. but, thats only my opinion.

anyways, i see that a simple question of how to make somethink a bit different in the game raised too much hussle for nothing. in the end, history is written by the winner, isn't it!? who know how would this game look like if something went wrong during WWII![8|]

@strawbuck: ok, wasnt looking on the forum that i should have done, but i wasnt even questioning the replacements. just wondering if it can be shut down for a game, my game vs. AI so I can try some other stuff in game. and I wasn't aware that only 4 CV's come back, I thougt that every CV sunk comes back (5th, 6th, 7th...if u manage that many[;)]). btw. is there a similar limit to CA's?



Bradley7735 -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 6:29:35 PM)

Hey Ron,

Thanks a million for the complete list of missing 2nd name US ships. But, wasn't there a baltimore class CA named Chicago 2? (I'm not sure)

bc



DrewMatrix -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 7:56:11 PM)

Think of it this way:

The US made 4 Essex Class CVs that are were actually used by the US in the Pacific in Real Life, but which may not apear in the game.

If the US player loses 4 CVs (like in real life) he will get in the game the same 4 CVs that were actually used in the Pacific in Real Life. He does not come out ahead.

If the US player manages to lose _no_ CVs in the game, he does NOT get those 4 CVs that were really built and which were really used in the Pacific. Presumably they are either sent to the Atlantic (the Pacific theater is doing so well there is no need to send more there) or the ships are just left uncompleted. The US had _lots_ of ships itdid not complete because there was clearly no need for them. Note the US was not unable to build all those uncompleted hulls, it chose not to because its strength already was ridiculously overwhelming.

The replacement rule does not give the allied player anything extra. It penalizes the allied player for doing superbly (which might have actually happened in real life too. In Real Life they would possibly have not sent these 4 ships to the Pacific if there were already all those other CVs there and no CV losses in the first 2 years of the war).



Bradley7735 -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 8:07:19 PM)

Beezle,
It also penalizes the allied player in that, if he loses 4 CV's in mid to late 42, he won't get replacements until 44. Historically all 4 came in in 43. So, most allied players won't be able to mount offensives until early 44. I don't know if anyone looked into this. It might not be possible for an allied player to invade fast enough to win by 8/45. I don't really know, but it seems that the 43 offensive at the Gilberts isn't really possible until 44.
bc



DrewMatrix -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 8:21:25 PM)

To Bradley:
Good Point

As an aside regarding the Allied CVs, I only have played against the AI but I find that in WiTP as in UV the Allied _land based_ air is so strong the CVs are almost superfluous. I have no trouble invading just about everywhere concentrically under cover of Land Based air. Any Japanese base or ships that contest these landings just get shredded. Then build up the base there and take another short hop forward.

That may be very different vs a human opponent (I don't play vs a human opponent because I am too hyperactive to only play 1 or 2 turns a day) but I don't see how a human opponent can keep the allied LBA from oozing forward from base to base.



Charles2222 -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 9:03:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:



What does not make sense is to intentionally reduce the carriers just because there is a slight naming hurdle. Now if the "extra" Essex carriers were only built after and as a result of the earlier carrier losses I could understand the current system. Does anyone know if this was in fact the case historically?


Of course the ships were not authorized by Congress every time a ship was sunk. We are not making Jell-O here. Orders were placed for a class run, were altered, renamed or cancelled as the situation warranted, but they were not conceived on a "when and if lost basis." This is completely off base. The spawning feature should be shot at sun up.[8D]


Yes it's like saying the Germans would've went to Total War before '44 if they did not do as well in France or Poland. It just takes the military mystery out of it. Points are important when you've given your best and still didn't win militarily, but with this rule you are either guaranteed military victory for one side or military defeat for the other. [>:]

I'm very unlikely to be playing this again until this fantasy rule is made optional.



Charles2222 -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 9:18:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

Think of it this way:

The US made 4 Essex Class CVs that are were actually used by the US in the Pacific in Real Life, but which may not apear in the game.

If the US player loses 4 CVs (like in real life) he will get in the game the same 4 CVs that were actually used in the Pacific in Real Life. He does not come out ahead.

If the US player manages to lose _no_ CVs in the game, he does NOT get those 4 CVs that were really built and which were really used in the Pacific. Presumably they are either sent to the Atlantic (the Pacific theater is doing so well there is no need to send more there) or the ships are just left uncompleted. The US had _lots_ of ships itdid not complete because there was clearly no need for them. Note the US was not unable to build all those uncompleted hulls, it chose not to because its strength already was ridiculously overwhelming.

The replacement rule does not give the allied player anything extra. It penalizes the allied player for doing superbly (which might have actually happened in real life too. In Real Life they would possibly have not sent these 4 ships to the Pacific if there were already all those other CVs there and no CV losses in the first 2 years of the war).


Why do you guys keep talking about "4 CV's" to the total ignorance of ALL the US/Australian CV's, CL's, and CLAA's that respawn? They also spawn "more than once" from what I've heard (maybe only a rumor). I know the manual says "CA's", which many of you are ignoring nonetheless, but ingame it's more than 'just' 4 CV's, and it's more than 'just' CA's. [&:]



Twotribes -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 9:26:00 PM)

As has been pointed out in at least one other thread, the US DID have the space to make 24 Essex class carriers. Do we get all 24? Didnt think so.



Honda -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 9:55:08 PM)

I for one don't see how the rule damages the Allies. When it comes to Independence CVLs they were, as CVLs basicaly were, quick patches. Conversions were made to fill in deficient fleet CV slots till the time Essex entered service in numbers.
And the ship respawn rule is very nicely explained for what it is. The sooner you accept it the better you are off. Look at it from this POW: what about the ships USN pulled back for second line service. Show me one Allied player who will park Lexy or Sara in SF or use it for shuttling planes about when there are dozens of CVE around to do it. Nobody withdraws a belt armor that thick just because the ship is deemed increasingly impracticle as war goes on. The game doesn't simulate that. When all is said and done, the respawn rule works just fine. Some things are simulated, some not. But the big picture is mostly accurate which is more then good enough for me. Have fun[sm=00000436.gif][sm=00000436.gif][sm=00000436.gif][sm=00000436.gif][sm=00000436.gif]
Everybody...



Taiyo -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 9:55:29 PM)

who knows, maybe if those 4 weren't sunk the production of the new ones would be slowered and not finished before 44 or 45... who knows, who knows... just let this rule be optional for the ones that would like it to be optional... and it would give allied players more challenge in later war years, knowing that they must really, really take care of "the original four"©!



Twotribes -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 10:25:47 PM)

Taiyo and the rest, "ignoring the respawn" ignores the fact that the US player is shorted 4 CV's he historically recieved in 1943. Putting them back in is actually worse for the Japanese player if the allied player husbands his forces.

And it ignores the capablitiy of the US to build more than it historicly did. The US had the capability to put out a lot more ships, they chose not to because they felt they werent needed. As an allied player I dont have that luxary, I cant alter the production of the US at all, it is fixed.

So if the Japanese player IS doing better than historical, I cant respond by producing more ships to counter it. Even though the US could have. The US canceled more ships then the Japanese made through out the war.



bstarr -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 10:30:59 PM)

If the rule were optional, another scenario would more than likely have to be included so Lexington II (for example) would be available. If not, the allies would be shortchanged.

Personally, I like the respawn rule, but I certainly don't have a gripe against making it optional. Optional rules alway please someone down the line and if a person (like myself) doesn't like the proposed change, they don't have to use it.

You know, this would make a great poll.
byron

ps.
anyone know where I can find a Texas flag to go under my name. Most other countries are available, but I can't find mine! [;)]



Bradley7735 -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 10:32:46 PM)

What ships were put into 2nd line service? I know the S class subs, Omaha CL's and the flush decker DD's were either sent to training duty or given to other navies, once the need wasn't as great. But Saratoga? I seem to recall that she was either being repaired or was at the front lines for the whole war. (Enterprise too)

But, I think we're all argueing the same point. Please put in the historical hulls and take out the respawn rule. Who cares if the US could have built more or if they would have canceled orders. (don't forget to add in all the late 45 ships as well)

Ron, did you see my question regarding Chicago II? I thought there was a Baltimore CA named Chicago. (thanks again for the list of missing hulls with duplicate names)



mogami -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 10:34:19 PM)

Hi, With or without makes almost no difference.

Without respawn rule but with normal correct OOB the USN gets more ships sooner then using the respawn rule. But in the end the extra ships in correct OOB or respawned ships using this rule are very small change in the big picture.

No matter what route the game uses the Japanese still need to sink more then 4 USN CV to be ahead (and this only if they lose none of their own)
The CA/CL are not even important in the equation. The Japanese need to sink almost 40 CA/CL without loss to be ahead in this area.



bstarr -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 10:35:01 PM)

Twotribes,
I listed in the 'wish list' that if it wasn't too much of a reprograming hassle that the Ranger should be transfered from the Atlantic if the Japs gain too much of an advantage in carrier numbers; ie, if they had won at Midway. This would probably be too much tinkering with the system for such a small change, though.
byron



bstarr -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 10:38:15 PM)

Mogami,
The USN will be in one helluva bind in 1943, though. As a Jap player, I believe I'd still sink whatever I can.
byron



DrewMatrix -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 10:43:28 PM)

I think you should get actually get Victory Points for refrigerators, washing machines and other consumer goods. That is where the excess steel, factory capacity and manpower actually goes for when the US elects not to build a few extra Essex class ships.

Just add to the US players total (and to the Japanese players total if he diverts HI points to consumer goods) one VP for every refrigerator and for every washing machine built during the war with the industrial capacity you didn't bother to use squashing the other player.

And you could say that any washing machine or refrigerator destroyed during the war (due to Manpower hits on San Franscisco or Tokyo for example) had to be replaced by making more refrigerators and washing machines before you could get credit for new consumer goods construction. Those have to be SPECIALLY CONSTRUCTED REPLACEMENT refrigerators. You don't get to just reuse the old refrigerator names on refridgerators already in the pipeline.

Hmm, you probably should penalize the player who loses more than 100 washing machines or refrigerators too. For the next 550 turns he can't wash his clothes and he has to eat dry cereal and black coffee (due to no refrigerator and no milk).

We need to make this game more realistic, after all.



mogami -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 11:33:06 PM)

Hi, The extra steel did not go into washing machines........it went into BEER CANS!!!!



Bradley7735 -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 11:36:40 PM)

Did they use steel in beer cans back then? Aluminum is used now. I guess airplane production would take all the aluminum up. So that leaves glass and steel?

Just think..... How much beer would fit into cans made from the USS Essex?????!?!? Mmmmmm....... Beer. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. (Homer, 1995)



DrewMatrix -> RE: turning off the rule (10/13/2004 11:39:51 PM)

quote:

BEER CANS


Fabulous!

OK, the US player gets one beer, (paid for by the Japanese player) for every A/C Capacity of Essex Class CVs he chooses not to build.

To make this historical he cannot demand modern Boutique microbrewery beers. He has to get Pabst Blue Ribbon.



kgsan -> RE: turning off the rule (10/14/2004 12:04:30 AM)

quote:

Hi, With or without makes almost no difference.

Without respawn rule but with normal correct OOB the USN gets more ships sooner then using the respawn rule. But in the end the extra ships in correct OOB or respawned ships using this rule are very small change in the big picture.

No matter what route the game uses the Japanese still need to sink more then 4 USN CV to be ahead (and this only if they lose none of their own)
The CA/CL are not even important in the equation. The Japanese need to sink almost 40 CA/CL without loss to be ahead in this area.


Granted the rule may not ultimately have that great an impact on the points; but why oh why, in a game that is otherwise what one might call slavishly devoted to accurately modeling the forces involved, does it not at least give gamers the option to include these forces with their historical arrival dates irregardless of spawning.

The current method avoids an awkward naming question granted, but not much else.

If the goal is play balancing (and I think from the comments Matrix staff, playtesters and moderators have made on this board, that is not the goal) then so be it, but it is ineffectual, as the game is still way heavily tilted against the Japanese player (as it was in real life). If the goal is to reflect a possible curbing of USA production and/or allocation of resources for the Pacific in the event of early sweeping US success, then the spawning rule seems to not go nearly far enough.

As a result, is there any chance that we could get the historical CVs and lesser ship reinforcements with historical entry dates made an option?



DrewMatrix -> RE: turning off the rule (10/14/2004 12:06:13 AM)

Seriously:

I think the real reason for this rule is that it is a carry-over from PacWar.



Charles2222 -> RE: turning off the rule (10/14/2004 5:04:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

As has been pointed out in at least one other thread, the US DID have the space to make 24 Essex class carriers. Do we get all 24? Didnt think so.


So the Germans could've gone to Total War earlier, where does the hypothetical nonsense end?



Charles2222 -> RE: turning off the rule (10/14/2004 5:20:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Did they use steel in beer cans back then? Aluminum is used now. I guess airplane production would take all the aluminum up. So that leaves glass and steel?

Just think..... How much beer would fit into cans made from the USS Essex?????!?!? Mmmmmm....... Beer. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. (Homer, 1995)


I believe the cans were called bottles.



mogami -> Canned Beer (10/14/2004 5:53:57 AM)

Hi, No a bottle is made out of glass and beer cans in WW2 were made out of steel.
Beer spoils when in contact with steel so the cans required a lining. Steel beer cans contiuned in use up to the 60's.
Schlitz beer became the number 1 beer in the world as a result of WW2. US service men became used to drinking it out of cans and in other countries where local breweries could not produce Schlitz became popular.

Beer cans had been around for a while. Kruger ran a test run of 200 cans right before the end of prohibtion and the first beer in cans went on sale in Jan 1934.
Other breweries followed suit.

Come on we are Grognards here. We know the important stuff. Bottled beer took up too much room to ship.

First can beer sold
Krueger 1934
Pabst 5-23-35
Northampton 6-11-35
Scheidt 6-27-35
Ballatine 7-25-35
Red Top 8-08-35
Globe 8-12-35
Heileman 8-13-35
Schlitz 8-27-35



TIMJOT -> RE: turning off the rule (10/14/2004 6:08:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, With or without makes almost no difference.

Without respawn rule but with normal correct OOB the USN gets more ships sooner then using the respawn rule. But in the end the extra ships in correct OOB or respawned ships using this rule are very small change in the big picture.



With all due respect Mogami my friend you are mistaken. Ive been away for a while and this has certainly been all hashed and rehashed but I feel incumbent to correct some apparent misconceptions posted on this thread.

The USN does NOT potentionally get short changed Essex CVs in 43 with the current "Respawn" Rule. Because Gary accounts for this by pushing forward the entry dates of the Essex CVs. Specifically Bunkerhill (7/43), Intrepid (8/43), and Franklin (11/43). None of these CVs were historically "operational" until 1944. So includeing the Essex the USN gets the same number "4" Essex CVs operational in 43 on roughly the same dates, if NO pre-war USN CV is sunk.

However, for every USN CV sunk in the first 6 months of the war he gets a "ADDITIONAL" Essex CV in 43. For a potential total of 9 Essex CVs in 1943. This, as well documented in previous threads was simply not possible.

There is NO disadvantage to the US in the respawn rule, other than he will not potentially get the last 4 Essex by 45, if he suffers no losses of his prewar CVs. By then it hardly matters and is in fact entirely plausible since the US cancelled many projects even some Essex CVs by the end of the war becuse the were deemed no longer needed.

In therory the respawn rule would be OK "IF" the CVs were simply placed at the end of the que instead of "inserted" into the que 550 days from the day its lost.

That being said,I really dont know why this is still being argued when its a DOA issue.

Regards



fbastos -> RE: turning off the rule (10/14/2004 6:36:07 AM)

I would like to stress the point that, if things like Historical First Turn, US Sub Doctrine and Allied Repairs can be set on a toggle, why can't the Ship Respawn be?

If some player paid $70 for the freedom of not attacking Pearl Harbor, then what would be the problem of letting some players to spend the same money to not respawn these ships?

We spend so much time trying to proselyte people about the correctness or incorrectness of spawning; let's forget about that and just make a request to 2by3 to put in one very little toggle, and then all will be happy.

F.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: turning off the rule (10/14/2004 8:38:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honda

I for one don't see how the rule damages the Allies. When it comes to Independence CVLs they were, as CVLs basicaly were, quick patches. Conversions were made to fill in deficient fleet CV slots till the time Essex entered service in numbers.
And the ship respawn rule is very nicely explained for what it is. The sooner you accept it the better you are off. Look at it from this POW: what about the ships USN pulled back for second line service. Show me one Allied player who will park Lexy or Sara in SF or use it for shuttling planes about when there are dozens of CVE around to do it. Nobody withdraws a belt armor that thick just because the ship is deemed increasingly impracticle as war goes on. The game doesn't simulate that. When all is said and done, the respawn rule works just fine. Some things are simulated, some not. But the big picture is mostly accurate which is more then good enough for me. Have fun[sm=00000436.gif][sm=00000436.gif][sm=00000436.gif][sm=00000436.gif][sm=00000436.gif]
Everybody...


I disagree completely. How is the respawn rule "well explained"? Look at my earlier post with the missing ships and please tell me how this is well explained. It can't be by any measure. We dick around with aircraft squadron, LCU ommissions etc but this massive naval ommision is OK? Get real![:D] It is totally bogus and was judged so years ago in a previous incarnation of this game, PacWar. Why it reemerged is beyond me.

As for a USN withdrawl feature (to deal with the second line service issue you point out) this has been advocated since Alpha. So shush![;)]



Ron Saueracker -> RE: turning off the rule (10/14/2004 8:53:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, With or without makes almost no difference.

Without respawn rule but with normal correct OOB the USN gets more ships sooner then using the respawn rule. But in the end the extra ships in correct OOB or respawned ships using this rule are very small change in the big picture.

No matter what route the game uses the Japanese still need to sink more then 4 USN CV to be ahead (and this only if they lose none of their own)
The CA/CL are not even important in the equation. The Japanese need to sink almost 40 CA/CL without loss to be ahead in this area.


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! You should be a politician. Jeeez. Did you not look at my earlier OOB oriented post in this thread? There is a definite difference. The respawn feature is a mistake which was continued from PacWar. It should not have resurfaced in WITP considering the negative response to it during PacWar's run as the ultimate game of the genre. Do ya agree with it or not, Russ? Man! I have no idea what your position is aside from your obvious desire not to contest the views of the designers.

What the hell is the point of concentrating on detail like weapons loadouts on ships as is done in WITP if fantasy assumptions like the add water and stir shipbuilding ability of the US is included as a non optional feature/fact?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.75