Matrix Games Forums

New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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 >> turning off the rule Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
turning off the rule - 10/12/2004 11:46:01 PM   
Taiyo


Posts: 17
Joined: 10/2/2004
Status: offline
is there a way to turn off that rule that sends allied ships back after some 400/500 days if they have been sunk before 1942 (don't know the month) ? in game menu or in editor?

_____________________________

All warfare is based on deception!

The Art of War
Post #: 1
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 12:30:27 AM   
rogueusmc


Posts: 4453
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline
That's not an option yet...maybe in the patch

_____________________________

As Americans, we go forward, in the service of our country, by the will of God. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

(in reply to Taiyo)
Post #: 2
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 12:47:00 AM   
Mogami


Posts: 12608
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, Several things.
The ships do not come back. Other ships come in with same name but they are new class.
There are ships left out of OOB because they had a name of an existing ship. If you turn off these ships you will short the Allied player ships he actually had. (Does it make a difference if the USN has no new Lexington because it is not sunk but instead has a new Enterprise if that ship is lost?)
Japanese PC/MSW come back in same manner.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to rogueusmc)
Post #: 3
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 1:43:37 AM   
Taiyo


Posts: 17
Joined: 10/2/2004
Status: offline
game manual says:

There are several instances in which replacements ships will be provided as reinforcements if a ship is sunk during the game. Replacement ships are generated if:
-An American CV is sunk prior to 1944 will be replaced by an Essex-class CV.
-An American or Australian CA that is sunk prior to 1944 will be replaced by a
Baltimore-class CA or a Cleveland-class CL. The replacement class is chosen at
random.
-A Minesweeper of any navy that is sunk will be replaced by a similar minesweeper.
Whenever a replacement ship is created, it will be placed in the reinforcement list and given an arrival time of around 550 days from the date the original ship was sunk.
(manual page 193)

Does this means that allied player can just take an Air combat TF, sail into Japanese teritory, do some damage, get his TF destroyed and sunk (TF would be mostli CA, CL and CV) and in about a year and a half he would get it back? If so, as allied you can go around making stupid mistakes with your task forces, but be revarded a brand new CV in couple of months? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get this rule!

_____________________________

All warfare is based on deception!

The Art of War

(in reply to Mogami)
Post #: 4
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 1:51:44 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6566
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
Chr1st, does anybody ever bother to learn something about history and then read the previous forum posts on the subject before b1tching about the game design?

(in reply to Taiyo)
Post #: 5
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 1:54:31 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9057
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online
The Allied player wont be rewarded in a couple of months. You are looking at a replacement in 550 days, ie about one and half year.

Also, he would have lost those original victory points for the sunk ships. CVs are not cheap from memory.

The rule tries to represent the large ship building/replacement capabilty available to the Allies.

(in reply to Taiyo)
Post #: 6
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 1:56:44 AM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 2967
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Taiyo

game manual says:

There are several instances in which replacements ships will be provided as reinforcements if a ship is sunk during the game. Replacement ships are generated if:
-An American CV is sunk prior to 1944 will be replaced by an Essex-class CV.
-An American or Australian CA that is sunk prior to 1944 will be replaced by a
Baltimore-class CA or a Cleveland-class CL. The replacement class is chosen at
random.
-A Minesweeper of any navy that is sunk will be replaced by a similar minesweeper.
Whenever a replacement ship is created, it will be placed in the reinforcement list and given an arrival time of around 550 days from the date the original ship was sunk.
(manual page 193)

Does this means that allied player can just take an Air combat TF, sail into Japanese teritory, do some damage, get his TF destroyed and sunk (TF would be mostli CA, CL and CV) and in about a year and a half he would get it back? If so, as allied you can go around making stupid mistakes with your task forces, but be revarded a brand new CV in couple of months? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get this rule!


Yes the allies can do this... Once... I believe you can only get a total of 4 free CVs this way... Plus, you will be giving the japanese playing over 2000 VPs for your stupidity... Each CV is worth about 400 VPs, plus 90 aircraft, plus the rest of the ships in the fleet... So if you throw away your 4 free CVs you will give the enemy right around 2000 VPs for free.... Don't throw them away... Cost the japanese for them.. EVen if they are sunk and the IJN CVs are only damaged its still a good deal... By the time the IJN CVs are repaired, you will have new CVs to play with...

Xargun

(in reply to Taiyo)
Post #: 7
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 1:57:17 AM   
Taiyo


Posts: 17
Joined: 10/2/2004
Status: offline
@pasternakski:

not bitching just asking for help. if that is forbidden on this forum then sorry didn't mean to. second: i just don't get why would any ship be replaced. history was the way it was. but in this game maybe we could be given an option to change some of it. Maybe someone made a huge mistake, didn't planed as he should have and got his TF destroyed. That happens in the war. That happens in the game. So that's why i was asking. With this rule allied player is entitled to more than his usual share of mistakes. And...mistakes made by Japan or by Germany cost them loosing the war, or loosing the war in a certain period of time!

_____________________________

All warfare is based on deception!

The Art of War

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 8
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 1:59:06 AM   
Taiyo


Posts: 17
Joined: 10/2/2004
Status: offline
@xargun: is there really a limit to it? because i didn't saw that in the manual!? ty

_____________________________

All warfare is based on deception!

The Art of War

(in reply to Taiyo)
Post #: 9
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 2:17:00 AM   
SeaWolF K

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/1/2003
Status: offline
Taiyo,

If the game represented all the allied ships that saw service in the pacific I would agree with you. However the game does not include Lexington II, Yorktown II, Hornet II and Wasp II that were Historical Essex class carriers that were renamed for fallen 1942 sister ships. The replace rule is trying to represent what happened historically. ( Personally I wish the historical replacements were in the game with the II after there name and then there would be no need for the respawn rule)

SeaWolF

(in reply to Taiyo)
Post #: 10
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 2:21:26 AM   
Taiyo


Posts: 17
Joined: 10/2/2004
Status: offline
@seawolf:

yes, that wuld be better than this. or if 4 of them survive the 42-43 period tere would be no need for the 'name'-II CV's, or if not the II' can come as replacement. maybe a better solution in my opinion.

_____________________________

All warfare is based on deception!

The Art of War

(in reply to SeaWolF K)
Post #: 11
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 2:39:22 AM   
Skyros


Posts: 1272
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline
Even better would be that the CV's were set up historically with the original names which I believe are known.

(in reply to Taiyo)
Post #: 12
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 2:44:22 AM   
SeaWolF K

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 10/1/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyros

Even better would be that the CV's were set up historically with the original names which I believe are known.



The only problem is that some of the names were reused on latter Hull numbers.

(in reply to Skyros)
Post #: 13
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 2:58:13 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 8513
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
Limit is four cv per the manual

(in reply to SeaWolF K)
Post #: 14
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 3:09:43 AM   
Mogami


Posts: 12608
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
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 )

After turn 1100 it is ok to sink as many USN CV as you can.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 10/12/2004 8:11:25 PM >


_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 15
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 3:36:25 AM   
Kid


Posts: 6624
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline
Have you given any thought as to how long 550 turns realy is? I've been playing the AI and making as many turns a day as I can and I've only done about 150 turns. The US player will be in a world of hurt if he is short on carriers for 550 turns.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and currently testing War in the East.


(in reply to Mogami)
Post #: 16
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 3:47:11 AM   
Mogami


Posts: 12608
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, Yes as the USN you do not want to lose a CV before you have strong LBA at all your vital bases. It is ok to lose a CV or have one damaged if you sink a Japanese CV in exchange.
Under any set of circumstance (respawn or no respawn rule) The USN should always trade CV 1 for 1. (But it is hard to arrange these 1 for 1 trades)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Kid)
Post #: 17
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 3:47:41 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12107
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Taiyo

is there a way to turn off that rule that sends allied ships back after some 400/500 days if they have been sunk before 1942 (don't know the month) ? in game menu or in editor?


Uh...oh! I promise to keep my trap shut. I believe Lemurs is making a sister mod to his full scenario which includes all USN ships omitted because of the name duplication/respawning feature. When you play it, institute a house rule where all respawned ships must remain in port and unused by the players. MSWs are not a biggie though.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 10/12/2004 8:50:57 PM >


_____________________________





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

(in reply to Taiyo)
Post #: 18
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 3:54:17 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12107
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

(Does it make a difference if the USN has no new Lexington because it is not sunk but instead has a new Enterprise if that ship is lost?)



Of course it does because the original hull was named Cabot and was available early in 1943. Because of the spawn rule, any hulls historically named after ships lost early in the Pacific have been scrapped from the OOB.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Mogami)
Post #: 19
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 5:24:31 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
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 )

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.

(in reply to Mogami)
Post #: 20
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 5:38:33 AM   
kgsan

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 4/22/2002
From: Louisiana, USA
Status: offline
If the hulls for these ships were laid down before their namesakes were sunk, then it certainly seems like they ought to be included in the game.

Why not, as someone suggested above, just name them Yorktown II, etc. and include them in the OOB regardless of the USN's sunk CVs in any given game? It may not be elegant but it seems much more accrate. Yes, this may allow the allied player more CVs in the endgame if he does better than historically in husbanding his initial CVs, but that is life. Same goes with aircraft, and all the other vessels the allies have. If they do better than the US did historically they will have more "stuff" to use later in the war. If they lose more "stuff" than the US historically did they will have less. It seems about right.

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?

(in reply to Taiyo)
Post #: 21
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 5:52:39 AM   
fbastos


Posts: 826
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

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.


The spawning rule is controversial, and as such it's very difficult to convince either side to change their opinion (otherwise it, by definition, would be an agreeable issue rather controversial).

While I have my own point of view about that, and while I learn a lot from these discussions (it's wise to respect and listen to the people that think differently than one's own), I do think that the whole discussion is a complete loss of time.

Just give that thing as an option, and let each player set it the way they want. Otherwise every person coming aboard will raise this question over and over again.

Best regards,
F.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 22
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 6:26:56 AM   
Mogami


Posts: 12608
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, I think it is a silly thing to fight over as well. 4 CV are a powerfull force in 1941.
In 1944/45 4 CV is a TF in a hex with 4 other 4 CV TF with or without 4 respawed CV.
As a result of this rule the USN will always have exactly the same number of CV in 1944 unless Japan sinks 5 or more before then.

There are 3 scenarios

Japan sinks no CV USN gets no CV has exactly the 1944 number
Japan sinks 4 CV USN gets 4 CV has exactly the historic number in 1944
Japan sinks more then 4 CV USN gets 4 CV has the historic number minus the excess over 4 Japan has sunk.

If Japan does not do scenario 3 then it does not matter. If they do then they are ahead same as Japan would have been the exact number of CV Japan would have been. The only non historic outcome is scenario 1 where if the USN saves a CV it loses a CV that was already under construction in 1941 and that arrived in the Pacific in 1943. But the USN can spare 4 CV dispite their power. If they lose the war it will not be because they did not have these 4 ships. (The USN could under a straight OOB of ships have 4 extra CV in 1944 if it lost no CV)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 10/12/2004 11:29:15 PM >


_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to fbastos)
Post #: 23
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 6:33:03 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4874
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
I have to add my 2c - I LIKE the respawning rule. It simulates the likely reaction of the US war industry to the rate of CV losses simply and effectively, IMHO.

(edited for spelling)

< Message edited by Andrew Brown -- 10/13/2004 1:33:20 PM >

(in reply to Mogami)
Post #: 24
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 7:09:14 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12107
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
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 )

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!

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?

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 10/13/2004 12:27:16 AM >


_____________________________





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 #: 25
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 7:35:01 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12107
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 10/13/2004 12:37:28 AM >


_____________________________





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 #: 26
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 8:02:54 AM   
dereck


Posts: 2375
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
I don't have the exact figures but during the war Japan never produced more than 200 ships of all types. The US produced more than that number in submarines alone, along with 108 carriers of all types (Fleet, Light, Escort), along with many other types of ships.

Remember, the US was producing Liberty ships in amazing quantity and sometimes as fast as in only THREE DAYS.

Industrially Japan was a minor league wanna-be who took on the largest industrial power in the world. It was a war in which Japan never had a chance to begin with and never should have started.

Actually, in my opinion, the American Navy is shorted more than just 4 replacement carriers. Since the campaign game can last into June 1946 there are a number of fleet carriers that WERE commissioned and active that are not included in the OOB - one of these being the carrier I served on. If the "war" goes beyond September 1945 these ships should be included in my opinion.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 27
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 10:06:31 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12107
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I have to add my 2c - I LIKE the respawning rule. It simulates the likely reaction of the US war industry to the rate of CV losses simply and effectively, IMHO.

(edited for spelling)


If this was possible, why would the US have converted nine Cleveland class CLs that were building into Independence class CVLs? Why could they not have "responded" to the sinkings and just slapped together more Essex class CVs? Remember that the CVs, CAs and CLs were renamed hulls already far along into the building process, they were NOT started from scratch as the spawning rule and design reasoning would have you believe.

_____________________________





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 #: 28
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 11:25:24 AM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16628
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline
Is it only bad luck to rename a ship AFTER it's been launched?

< Message edited by Onime No Kyo -- 10/13/2004 9:25:42 AM >


_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 29
RE: turning off the rule - 10/13/2004 12:09:38 PM   
strawbuk


Posts: 289
Joined: 4/30/2004
From: London via Glos
Status: offline
@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 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.

_____________________________



Twinkle twinkle PBY
Seeking Kido Bu-tai
Flying o' the sea so high
An ill-omen in the sky
Twinkle twinkle PBY
Pointing out who's next to fry

(in reply to Taiyo)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> turning off the rule Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
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

0.119