Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: turning off the rule

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: turning off the rule Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: turning off the rule - 10/14/2004 8:58:02 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kgsan

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?


Exactly!.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to kgsan)
Post #: 61
RE: turning off the rule - 10/14/2004 9:55:45 AM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		Is it too late to add the USS Ranger (CV4) to the OOB? It would have the same characteristics as the Wasp class. Used for carrier qual training in the SoCal area in '44. The USN might have brought it in for emergency earlier. VT-4, VB-4, VF-4 embarked.

After getting my butt kicked by the Japanese for the first year or so, I want every hull I can get for my sweet revenge.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 62
RE: turning off the rule - 10/14/2004 10:08:14 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

Is it too late to add the USS Ranger (CV4) to the OOB? It would have the same characteristics as the Wasp class. Used for carrier qual training in the SoCal area in '44. The USN might have brought it in for emergency earlier. VT-4, VB-4, VF-4 embarked.

After getting my butt kicked by the Japanese for the first year or so, I want every hull I can get for my sweet revenge.


This is one of those issues which demands a little "designer liberty." Ranger was there as a training carrier, but there is no withdrawl feature for US or any minimum retire to second line status feature either...something which could be achievedby utilizing the same requirement parameters as Manchurian garrison or force level maintenance to counter possible Chinese partisans etc. Failing to do so costs Political Points. Because of this, players would throw Ranger into the cauldron.

I really believe a USN withdrawl feature is needed to simulate both the real need to defend the Panama Canal area and the older ships assigned to training necessity which facilitated the manning of the huge naval build up...hell, all the S Boats, Porpoise, Salmon, Tambor and Gar class boats were retired from frontline service from 1943 on. As it is now, these ships which were no longer arrayed against Japan are still used by players no doubt.

Speaking of political points, I think ships should pay PPs to transfer HQs as other units have to. More severe if one wants to combine/mix foreign ships into the same TF.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 63
RE: turning off the rule - 10/14/2004 4:36:12 PM   
SpitfireIX


Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
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.


DD-694 USS Ingraham II (technically III--she was the third DD to bear the name), Sumner class, is included in the database--however, her namesake (DD-444, Gleaves class) operated exclusively in the Atlantic, and was lost there in 1942. So evidently the only reason for the respawn feature is to avoid duplication of names.

quote:


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?


I agree that the II suffix is distasteful--however, I'd prefer that the Allies have a historical OOB (I pretty much only play the Allies, and only play against the AI, so I'm not concerned with trying to give Japan some kind of chance to win that they never had IRL). Couldn't the designers just include a feature to allow for renaming of ships, though? I can't imagine it would be that hard to implement.

_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 64
RE: turning off the rule - 10/14/2004 5:16:44 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		Ron, I don't know if you saw my post, or responded to it, but..

Wasn't there a Baltimore class CA named Chicago? I didn't see it in your list of omitted ships, so now I don't know if I'm high or if you missed it.

Thanks for the list, btw.

bc

(in reply to SpitfireIX)
Post #: 65
RE: turning off the rule - 10/14/2004 5:51:07 PM   
medicff

 

Posts: 710
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline 		I haven't played into '44 yet so I wouldn't know the game effects. I personally try to conserve the allied CV's for future use or tactical trades with Jap CV's. But realistically the U.S. should have all the ships that were being constructed. But maybe for game playability' i.e. game balance, the designers have opted for the respawning. Just my opinion (everyone has one)

(in reply to Taiyo)
Post #: 66
RE: turning off the rule - 10/14/2004 5:51:09 PM   
medicff

 

Posts: 710
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline 		I haven't played into '44 yet so I wouldn't know the game effects. I personally try to conserve the allied CV's for future use or tactical trades with Jap CV's. But realistically the U.S. should have all the ships that were being constructed. But maybe for game playability' i.e. game balance, the designers have opted for the respawning. Just my opinion (everyone has one)

sorry about duplicate - don't know how that happened please delete

< Message edited by medicff -- 10/14/2004 3:54:36 PM >

(in reply to Taiyo)
Post #: 67
RE: turning off the rule - 10/15/2004 6:08:46 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		I only asked for Ranger to get the "I hate the Allied respawn advantage" crowd spun up.

I would use Ranger if it was there. It saw action in Operation Torch, and raids on Norway in '43:
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv04-ranger/cv04-ranger.html

Old looking ship, but USS Wasp was actually designed as a (newer) Ranger repeat, because of Washington Treaty tonnage limits.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 68
RE: turning off the rule - 10/15/2004 6:39:59 PM   
kaiser73


Posts: 394
Joined: 7/28/2004
Status: offline 		I am a Japan fanboy, but i fail to understand why people are so worried about the respawn of CV.

1) The japan gets points for sinking CV.

2) The japan gets big strategic advantage from sinking allied CV in '42. If Allies lose their CV in '42, Japan can go rampage for longer. This means much more allied ships sunk, more bases conquered, less losses for Japan. It also means Allies will be slowed down in counter offensive.

3) Japan players should play to "win the game". this is possible with autovictory or in '45 or '46 with vp. Japan players shouldn't think about "win the war" cause, historically this wasn't possible.

Play a PBEM against a good Japan player (and i am not), lose your 4 CV in a silly raid near Japan as the original poster says, then see how bad Japan player will kick your ass for the next ingame year.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 69
RE: turning off the rule - 10/15/2004 8:12:57 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kaiser73

I am a Japan fanboy, but i fail to understand why people are so worried about the respawn of CV.

1) The japan gets points for sinking CV.

2) The japan gets big strategic advantage from sinking allied CV in '42. If Allies lose their CV in '42, Japan can go rampage for longer. This means much more allied ships sunk, more bases conquered, less losses for Japan. It also means Allies will be slowed down in counter offensive.

3) Japan players should play to "win the game". this is possible with autovictory or in '45 or '46 with vp. Japan players shouldn't think about "win the war" cause, historically this wasn't possible.

Play a PBEM against a good Japan player (and i am not), lose your 4 CV in a silly raid near Japan as the original poster says, then see how bad Japan player will kick your ass for the next ingame year.


I'm an Allied fanboy and I don't play like a maniac. I use my CVs very carefully early on and I would not be surprised if a fair percentage of them, especially Lex, Hornet, Yorktown and Wasp, survive into 43. If this is the case, why should I not get CV10 Bon Homme Richard, CV12 Kearsarge, CV16 Cabot and CV18 Oriskany? So, either way, USN will be short of CVs in 1943 and this will hinder the advance across the Pacific and limit combat primarily in areas within LBA fighter cover.

Shake your head soldier! Whadya hear? Nothin' sarge! Exactly!!!

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 10/15/2004 1:15:36 PM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to kaiser73)
Post #: 70
RE: turning off the rule - 10/15/2004 9:33:29 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		I swear, if I hear the expression "respawn" one more time, I'm going to pull out a knife and shoot somebody.

This is about warfighting materiel production, not some biological function generally attributed to fish.

The sensible position is that the designers need to make a reasoned decision about how many carriers the American production machine could produce in the time frame of the war, incorporate an exact number that will be built irrespective of losses, and develop a formula whereby losses will be replaced. I think that this has been done (although I agree with those who believe it errs significantly to the advantage of the Japanese side), and I would like to see the designers stand behind their decisions and foreclose all this spurious debate.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 71
RE: turning off the rule - 10/15/2004 9:36:06 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

I use my CVs very carefully early on and I would not be surprised if a fair percentage of them, especially Lex, Hornet, Yorktown and Wasp, survive into 43


No kidding.. note to thosw playing against Ron, he has found the secret GO TO ATLANTIC buttone forhis fleets... It is 4 42 and he has lost 1 cl.. in my adopted game btw

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 72
RE: turning off the rule - 10/16/2004 4:18:05 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

quote:

I use my CVs very carefully early on and I would not be surprised if a fair percentage of them, especially Lex, Hornet, Yorktown and Wasp, survive into 43


No kidding.. note to thosw playing against Ron, he has found the secret GO TO ATLANTIC buttone forhis fleets... It is 4 42 and he has lost 1 cl.. in my adopted game btw


This view is a little misleading. Aside from the initial two-three weeks of this campaign where heavy units were at risk anyway and not utilizing them would have been gamey and downright un-English, my RN units have for the most part escorted about twenty convoys to Australia or have stayed out of the way of the Japanese CVs and LBA. Why, because it is suicide to do much of anything else with them at this point. Historically, the Eastern fleet stayed clear of Japanese naval forces and LBA as well during 1942/43 for the same reasons. As both you and Dave have seen, it is not necessary to throw merchant and naval vessels into forlorn hope situations to keep units/bases supplied and mount a succesful defence of India, Java, Burma etc. (knocking on wood here as Freeboy is in the midst of a fairly determined bid for India, Burma and Ceylon).

As for the USN, it's been actively escorting troop and supply convoys, patrolling and generally maintaining a stance from which it will react if the "commitment line" I've set is more than probed. Only the foolish Allied would mount operations such as invasions without establishing control of the sea, even if temporary and localized.

I've not stuck my head in the sand, I just don't throw units away for the sake of doing something. It's not like this game has been lacking for action. Lots of sunk and damaged Japanese ships, from the Zuikaku taking two torps from Albacores on down to the most humble MSW and merchant now forming artificial reefs off India and a few other regions.

And this is what stinks. If my reserved strategy pans out, I may well have some vessels in service well past their historical "loss" date. Because of this, the vessels which were building and were slated for different names will "cease to exist" because they were cursed by having been historically renamed in honour of ships lost. Four of the earliest historically available Essex class CVs, queens in this naval chess game, simply become unavailable as reinforcements, along with a host of other ships...one Australian. While Pasternaski may abhore the term "respawn", it is an ideal term. I personally like "add water and stir". Essentially, it is a renaming issue, and I hereby rechristen it as such.

Why is it actually a name issue, and not some attempt at "modelling" the US ship building priorities, capabilities and direction? This is why...ask yourself if we would have this feature if the USN was not prone to honouring its lost ships by naming future ships with the lost ship's name and left them with their original and temporally unique names. Of course not. There was only three ways this dilemma would have been dealt with which would have prevented this debate from ever occurring.

1) Have the vessels which historically were renamed/named in honour of lost ships (which potentially may not be lost in the game) made distinct from their predecessors by adding the suffix "II" to the name in the database.

2) Have any ship which was historically christened in commeroration of a lost ship be entered into the database utilizing it's original name or use a hypothetical name.

3) Allow players to rename ships that arrive with duplicate names. Many players would probably really like this option. (Could get a little weird I suspect)

If any of the obvious approaches were taken, we would not be having this discussion, everyone would be happy, and I would not have pushed my luck over the issue and become a grumpy middle aged geek. Or revealed myself as one.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 73
RE: turning off the rule - 10/16/2004 4:30:59 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
[cut]

There was only three ways this dilemma would have been dealt with which would have prevented this debate from ever occurring.

1) Have the vessels which historically were renamed/named in honour of lost ships (which potentially may not be lost in the game) made distinct from their predecessors by adding the suffix "II" to the name in the database.

2) Have any ship which was historically christened in commeroration of a lost ship be entered into the database utilizing it's original name or use a hypothetical name.

3) Allow players to rename ships that arrive with duplicate names. Many players would probably really like this option. (Could get a little weird I suspect)

If any of the obvious approaches were taken, we would not be having this discussion, everyone would be happy, and I would not have pushed my luck over the issue and become a grumpy middle aged geek. Or revealed myself as one.


I realise that you feel very strongly about this subject, but I have to respectfully disagree that such changes would make "everyone" happy. I am quite happy with the system the way it is now and I would prefer it to remain the way it is.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 74
RE: turning off the rule - 10/16/2004 4:43:12 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
[cut]

There was only three ways this dilemma would have been dealt with which would have prevented this debate from ever occurring.

1) Have the vessels which historically were renamed/named in honour of lost ships (which potentially may not be lost in the game) made distinct from their predecessors by adding the suffix "II" to the name in the database.

2) Have any ship which was historically christened in commeroration of a lost ship be entered into the database utilizing it's original name or use a hypothetical name.

3) Allow players to rename ships that arrive with duplicate names. Many players would probably really like this option. (Could get a little weird I suspect)

If any of the obvious approaches were taken, we would not be having this discussion, everyone would be happy, and I would not have pushed my luck over the issue and become a grumpy middle aged geek. Or revealed myself as one.


I realise that you feel very strongly about this subject, but I have to respectfully disagree that such changes would make "everyone" happy. I am quite happy with the system the way it is now and I would prefer it to remain the way it is.


Glad you are happy. I'd like to see a poll on the issue. Anyway, my point was that if one of the three above listed approaches were taken from the outset we would have an indisputable OOB on the subject, and you would not have had the opportunity to choose the fantasy solution as your preference.

Anyway, unfortunately we've all been told numerous times that the flawed approach will remain despite the evidence.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 75
RE: turning off the rule - 10/16/2004 6:22:23 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		Ron, You could just decide to come out and play after all what if I manage to start taking bases in India...
????


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 76
RE: turning off the rule - 10/16/2004 6:30:50 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Ron, You could just decide to come out and play after all what if I manage to start taking bases in India...
????




What's that line? "Careful for what you wish for...it might just come true." Problem is the Fulmars are no match for IJN Zeros. I used them briefly as a stop gap measure when you were air dropping IJA Paras behind my lines and you saw what happened. They got butchered.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 77
RE: turning off the rule - 10/16/2004 7:29:48 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		I think Ron's choice #3 should have been the solution from the very start. It
would have avoided all this non-sense and put the historical ships in play at
the historical times. And Re-naming your ships could be fun. Think of the possibilities for the Brits?

Invincible, Indomitible, Impervious, Impregnated, Inflamable....

_____________________________


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 78
RE: turning off the rule - 10/16/2004 7:36:46 PM   
fbastos


Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline 		I proposed some time ago to allow renaming of task forces too. After all, we want TF-38 (not TF-1027) with Mitchell in command... :)

F.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 79
RE: turning off the rule - 10/16/2004 9:31:22 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I think Ron's choice #3 should have been the solution from the very start. It
would have avoided all this non-sense and put the historical ships in play at
the historical times. And Re-naming your ships could be fun. Think of the possibilities for the Brits?

Invincible, Indomitible, Impervious, Impregnated, Inflamable....


Would have had to make this possible only for ships which arrive with duplicate names within their nationality. And once entered and ""christened", no changes allowed. This would screw with your opponents mind. If you name a ship Inflatulent, you are stuck with it.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 80
RE: turning off the rule - 10/16/2004 10:06:04 PM   
fbastos


Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline 		I don't get the need to rename ships. If you end up with a CV Hornet and a CV Hornet II at the same time, what's the problem?

F.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 81
RE: turning off the rule - 10/16/2004 10:48:35 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

I don't get the need to rename ships. If you end up with a CV Hornet and a CV Hornet II at the same time, what's the problem?

F.


None. Just having fun with the implications if #3 were chosen instead of the present approach.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to fbastos)
Post #: 82
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: turning off the rule Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.344