Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Utter BS

 
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 >> Utter BS Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Utter BS - 6/23/2006 5:37:01 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Akyab. AF(3), Allied owned.
Level 9 forts.
Not overloaded with support personel.
All LCUS (about 3x Divs of LCUs + RAF HQ), all prepped at 100.
AF is not overloaded (less than 50 aircraft per size)
Large minefield (a DD and CL were damaged on the way in)
Surface group defending (4x PTs torped a DD)

And yet, who knew Japan had nukes in July of '42...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Akyab, at 30,29


Allied aircraft
no flights


Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 17 destroyed
T.IVa: 4 destroyed
Swordfish: 3 destroyed
Spitfire Vb: 10 destroyed
Catalina I: 2 destroyed
Wirraway: 1 destroyed
Hurricane II: 1 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CL Sendai
CL Kuma
CA Suzuya
CA Atago
BB Kongo
CA Myoko
BB Kirishima


Allied ground losses:
1800 casualties reported
Guns lost 29
Vehicles lost 7

Airbase hits 15
Airbase supply hits 18
Runway hits 142

---

Thats at long range (escorts not bombarding, I can tell, because there were DDs in the surface combat)).

I make it a point to not complain much.

But sorry, I'm throwing the BS flag on this one. Please, please "review" the bombardment routines.

Flame away.
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

Post #: 1
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 5:40:57 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline 		You're not saying anything that hasn't been said many times before over the last two years. 

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 2
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 5:44:11 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		But it is OK because the IJN is doing the bombardment mission.

_____________________________


(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 3
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 5:53:54 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
quote:

You're not saying anything that hasn't been said many times before over the last two years.


I know. But like my mom used to say, "Boo-hoo. Go on out to the garden and eat worms if it'll make ya feel better."

But it does make me feel better.



-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 4
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 6:49:18 AM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

quote:

You're not saying anything that hasn't been said many times before over the last two years.


I know. But like my mom used to say, "Boo-hoo. Go on out to the garden and eat worms if it'll make ya feel better."

But it does make me feel better.



-F-

Eewww. Your mother made you eat worms?

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 5
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 6:55:15 AM   
popejoy1

 

Posts: 76
Joined: 8/20/2002
Status: offline 		Hi!

Could there have been a "critical hit" or some such (e.g., hit the ammo dump?)

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 6
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 10:39:01 AM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		good - allied enter in offensive mode in my game 
let's lower bombardment casualties

_____________________________


(in reply to popejoy1)
Post #: 7
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 12:43:12 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
quote:

Eewww. Your mother made you eat worms?









Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 8
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 12:58:45 PM   
Tophat1815

 

Posts: 1824
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
If this is a stock game then you deserve every loss plus 50% more........why? Because you have massed 4E Death at your fingertips and all the poor jap does is pointless................."it just doesn't matter".

< Message edited by Tophat1812 -- 6/23/2006 12:59:10 PM >

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 9
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 1:00:02 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		as far as i know late war allied bombardments also act as nuke 

_____________________________


(in reply to Tophat1815)
Post #: 10
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 1:55:38 PM   
Kadrin


Posts: 183
Joined: 5/5/2005
From: Orange, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 17 destroyed
T.IVa: 4 destroyed
Swordfish: 3 destroyed
Spitfire Vb: 10 destroyed
Catalina I: 2 destroyed
Wirraway: 1 destroyed
Hurricane II: 1 destroyed



Why are you still operating Wirraways and T.IVa's in July? Are PDU's off or something?

_____________________________



(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 11
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 1:57:47 PM   
RAM

 

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline 		We're talking about a long bombardment by 40 8 inch guns and 16 14'' guns. Long range or not: one hour of bombardment by those things would bring hell to earth.

I would expect the place to be very pretty much torn apart by all that massed fire. 203 and 356mm guns are nothing to sneeze at. The runway would mostly be massacred, the aircraft losses seem to me like quite reasonable.

also remember, those ground losses are not deaths, but suppressed infantry... and I certainly would expect a lot of ground units losing their equipment, having injured men,etc under such a massive firepower. Is a quite high loss rate looking at your fortification level, but maybe they simply got lucky, and let's not forget you've got some massed infantry formations at that base. It's easier to hit more if there is a more dense defensive environment in place (more targets-easier for a shell to hit something important)


The only thing I can see here as questionable is that if the bombardment is a strategic one, that's BS. One of the house rules I always try to enforce in my games is that no bombardment will happen unless it's of tactical nature (the bombarder's side has land units on same hex bombarded), or it's prep bombardment for an incoming seaborne invasion.

usually that's enough to deal with the strategic naval bombarding BS.


Anyway I tend to think that naval bombardments cause too much damage to ground units and I won't complain if it's lowered a bit. But the aircraft losses are to be expected, IMHO, and the runway of a small to medium airfield subjected to that kind of firepower should be closed after such a beating.


just my 0.02€

< Message edited by RAM -- 6/23/2006 2:01:16 PM >

_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 12
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 2:06:48 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		it is impossible for any side to carry out strategic naval bombardment to fraction of 4E activity
it is easier to hunt attacking forces
second it is hard to keep tempo of such operation
ship weariness ( sys dmg) is more painful than ops losses
subs , minefields , PTs , TB , and another SC TF can defend base with good result
there is little to do against massed 300+ escorted 4E attacks and they can be kept for much longer time - not realistic too

any such naval action  can be done once or twice against good player later it is high risk for irreplacable assets

i don't see a problem  - such action is considered by me as high risk / unknown result  - sometimes when enemy massed planes it is best solution but there is no way sb will make it on daily basis.

and please stop fanboism it is not japan nuke bombadment as both sides has such ability and usually both use sooner or later
how many allied players decided to strike against early lost Rangoon  ??? - most players I know did it  - often with full might of heavy RN ships



_____________________________


(in reply to RAM)
Post #: 13
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 2:42:02 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		This is a team game started almost two years ago under v1.21.
There is no such thing as PDUs... 

I am the UK (hense the origination of my sig).  My brother is in charge of the US.  He's fairly tight-fisted with anything that doesn't actually arrive in India.

I "stole" a single group of B-17s from Mac before he decided to hand over the Philipines.  I "stole" the RAAF Throwaway squadrons, because I knew he wouldn't miss them until they were half-way to Ceylon.

My reinforcement track = what arrives in India and the few obsolete squadrons that I manage to sneak away from Oz.  You'd be surprised how much use you can get out out of Throwaways and T-IVs when you don't have a choice.

If I had 200 B-17s, you better believe I'd blow the he11 out of his AFs in Burma.  But this is a team game, and I'm limited the one group that I have (and I don't get first draw on replacements for it ).  I've got about 40 Hudsons and 30 Wellingtons, plus my 48 B-17s (when I can get them off the ground).  My "retaliatory strikes" tend to be fairly bloody affairs (for me) unescorted against Moulmein.  But every once and a while, the crappy weather gods smile in Burma and ground him, and I get to kill maybe 15 Zeros on the ground.  Chances are I'll lose 30 bombers to his fighters (proabably take 10 with me), but at least it's spitting in his eye.



I think I'm doing pretty d_mn well, all things considered.

-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 6/23/2006 3:04:42 PM >

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 14
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 3:12:20 PM   
saj42


Posts: 1125
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline 		Now this may seem a little radical but how about an option to target EITHER the port, or airfield, or LCUs - much like when doing a City Attack with LBA.
At present the bombardment TF hits the whole of a 60 mile hex - IRL it would be more localised.

This may only be possible in WITP II

Just my 2c

_____________________________


Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 15
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 4:30:07 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Akyab. AF(3), Allied owned.
Level 9 forts.
Not overloaded with support personel.
All LCUS (about 3x Divs of LCUs + RAF HQ), all prepped at 100.
AF is not overloaded (less than 50 aircraft per size)
Large minefield (a DD and CL were damaged on the way in)
Surface group defending (4x PTs torped a DD)

And yet, who knew Japan had nukes in July of '42...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Akyab, at 30,29


Allied aircraft
no flights


Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 17 destroyed
T.IVa: 4 destroyed
Swordfish: 3 destroyed
Spitfire Vb: 10 destroyed
Catalina I: 2 destroyed
Wirraway: 1 destroyed
Hurricane II: 1 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CL Sendai
CL Kuma
CA Suzuya
CA Atago
BB Kongo
CA Myoko
BB Kirishima


Allied ground losses:
1800 casualties reported
Guns lost 29
Vehicles lost 7

Airbase hits 15
Airbase supply hits 18
Runway hits 142

---

Thats at long range (escorts not bombarding, I can tell, because there were DDs in the surface combat)).

I make it a point to not complain much.

But sorry, I'm throwing the BS flag on this one. Please, please "review" the bombardment routines.

Flame away.
-F-



I can´t see anything here that can´t do a US bombardment fleet too.

But yes, bombardments are too bloody - for BOTH sides! Yes, air battle is too bloody! Yes, ground battle needs to be looked at! Yes, the supply routines are "not really good"!...

The only thing I see here is yet again PTs that are performing good - too good.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 16
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 4:36:40 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		But yes, bombardments are too bloody - for BOTH sides!
Agreed.

Yes, air battle is too bloody!
Agreed.

Yes, ground battle needs to be looked at!
Agreed.

Yes, the supply routines are "not really good"!...
Agreed.

The only thing I see here is yet again PTs that are performing good - too good.
4x PTs gained surprise put a single torp into a DD. I'm not sure how that would be considered amazing (esp since I lost a flotilla of 4 others the week before, without them even firing a shot - very reasonable in my opinion).

But to each his own.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 17
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 5:31:30 PM   
greg_slith


Posts: 490
Joined: 9/14/2004
Status: offline 		Man, I must be doing something wrong. I've sent six BB's and assorted CA's against targets on Honshu that recon says has almost 100 a/c and 70+ LCU's and there were less than 10 a/c destroyed and maybe a few hundred casualties. NO DAMAGE to port or airfield. The only tac-nuke I've had was the first bombardment of Truk. On all turns after (I'm talking for weeks after) there was "realistic" damage: a few a/c and some inf and guns. Doesn't matter how many BB's I put in the TF.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 18
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 5:38:35 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		we discuss one result not statistics and as we all know it has no worth from this point of view
without of bigger amount of data
unfortunately as most discussions at forum

_____________________________


(in reply to greg_slith)
Post #: 19
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 5:51:16 PM   
Oliver Heindorf


Posts: 1911
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Hamburg/Deutschland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

But it is OK because the IJN is doing the bombardment mission.


nothing to add.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 20
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 6:41:50 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		Do you have an idea of how many hexes the bombardment TF steamed in the turn before bombarding? My theory is: less hexes steaming=more op points available to bombard=more ammo expended bombarding=greater bombardment result.

Of course it has been mentioned before that the "paper" for the bombardment TF's "rock" is an SCTF of any strength in the potential target hex....

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 6/23/2006 6:42:46 PM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)
Post #: 21
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 6:51:23 PM   
BLUESBOB

 

Posts: 219
Joined: 8/27/2005
From: Fullerton, Ca.
Status: offline 		I was trying to get a decent defense of Amboina going in a game. Moved in some DAF's and garrison battalions from other areas. Nagumo, Ise, and some cruisers came in and, in one bombardment, I'm knocked down from over 5000 supply to less than 500. Ridiculous. I guess it was all piled up on the beach with a big target painted on it.

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 22
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 6:52:42 PM   
greg_slith


Posts: 490
Joined: 9/14/2004
Status: offline 		My guess is it was the max at Truk but when when I bombarded Osaka it was from Takamatsu which is 1 hex away. They were already refueled/rearmed the turn before so no ops points were expended. I'm not complaining as my results seem o.k.

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 23
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 6:59:30 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

This is a team game started almost two years ago under v1.21.
There is no such thing as PDUs... 

I am the UK (hense the origination of my sig).  My brother is in charge of the US.  He's fairly tight-fisted with anything that doesn't actually arrive in India.

I "stole" a single group of B-17s from Mac before he decided to hand over the Philipines.  I "stole" the RAAF Throwaway squadrons, because I knew he wouldn't miss them until they were half-way to Ceylon.

My reinforcement track = what arrives in India and the few obsolete squadrons that I manage to sneak away from Oz.  You'd be surprised how much use you can get out out of Throwaways and T-IVs when you don't have a choice.

If I had 200 B-17s, you better believe I'd blow the he11 out of his AFs in Burma.  But this is a team game, and I'm limited the one group that I have (and I don't get first draw on replacements for it ).  I've got about 40 Hudsons and 30 Wellingtons, plus my 48 B-17s (when I can get them off the ground).  My "retaliatory strikes" tend to be fairly bloody affairs (for me) unescorted against Moulmein.  But every once and a while, the crappy weather gods smile in Burma and ground him, and I get to kill maybe 15 Zeros on the ground.  Chances are I'll lose 30 bombers to his fighters (proabably take 10 with me), but at least it's spitting in his eye.



I think I'm doing pretty d_mn well, all things considered.

-F-


Feinder, that sounds like a really fun game. What exactly are you commanding? Just Army in India? Anything else.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 24
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 7:24:22 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
quote:

we discuss one result not statistics and as we all know it has no worth from this point of view
without of bigger amount of data
unfortunately as most discussions at forum


Agreed.

If you would like, I am more than happy to provide fort, supply, morale, disruption, absolutely everything from the Allies PoV about that bombardment. That base was better off (in game terms) than SanFrancisco (sans 15" shore batteries). I'm sure my esteemed opponent would offer every shred of info regarding commanders, ammo levels, everything. The stats ARE available. If would be glad to publish every minutia of data for the last 20 turns (I've got it), if it would make WitP a more accurate reflection of capability.

(rest of post -not- in direct response to Sneer)

It's true, bombardment groups can nuke for both sides. Yes, the RN can put together 4 BBs and collection of CAs, and try to shoot up Rangoon. Just like Kurt did, you take your chances, you're not GUARENTEED a nuke every time (thank gawd). But simply stating that out of context, is being just a bit pious. If it was "the same" for Allies and Japan, why don't Allied players "nuke" Japanese bases 1942? It -IS- different for IJN vs. the Alies, and anyone who's played past 12-10-41 knows why. But here's for the short-sighted crowd...

Well give Kongo & Krishima "normal" sys dmg (more than 0), so they're moving at 25 - 29 kts; 5 hexes in and 5 hexes back out by daybreak (pristine, they can go 6 in and 6 out, but that's with 0 sys, and certainly not normal conditions). Hm. What Allied aircraft can attack at 5 hexes out? Most medium bombers. Beuforts, Avengers, and Swordfish at extended range. Everything carries either 250# or 500# bombs. Do either of those penetrate the deck armor of ANY IJN BB or CA? Nope. They might as well be dropping ping-pong balls. Does anyting in the Allied inventory carry torps to range of 5? Nope.

Now lets turn the tables. The Allied BBs are all 19 - 21 knotters (pristine). We'll give the benefit of the doubt, and even go "pristine", so you can make 4 hexes in, and 4 hexes out. Hm. What Japanese aircraft can attack at 4 hexes out? Everything. How many of them use torps? All of them, except the dive-bombers. What Japanese bombers will still hit you with torps at 8 hexes out for that matter...? Obviously, it's all lethal.

---

The problem is that, you can get the implauable result to begin with (IMO, obviously not everyone sees it as implauable). Yes, you CAN get a nuke result regardless of nationality (in spite of the risk). Btu obviously, the bombardment routine is ignoring fortifications for all levels. If that base had low fort levels, I might accept the notion that the base facilities were primative, and that there was a lack of shelter. But we're talking the highest levels of forts possible in WitP. Surely that's got to count for something? What does Level 9 forts represent anyway? Considering the time/supplies/effort in WitP required to get to that level, surely that means revetments for the aircraft etc, to protect against bombardments to begin with. Heck, Sing in-game starts with Level 5 (or is it 6) forts. This base has it beat. Fortifications SHOULD act as a mitigating factor to the damage recieved from naval bombardment. I don't believe it does, or that obviously there's a loop-hole somewhere. I'm just asking that it be reviewed, and if forts do NOT offer a defense vs. bombardment, then why do they not?

Folks said that the routines for the initial PH strike that sank 5 BBs and a host of other ships in the first turn were "plausible" for over a year. It didn't happen all the time, but it shouldn't have been happening to begin with. Despite the fact that the PH strike was one of the most tested routines in WitP, they found a bug. Split groups set to NavAtk primary, Port Secondary, were actually making 2 port attacks with the first turn bonuses. Plenty of folks saw the results as perfectly legitimate. But it was a bug in the itteration of the code, not an "intended feature". It got fixed. Besides the fort issue, it's POSSIBLE that an itteration routine is geting wonkered somewhere, and multiple attacks are being made (in spite of ammo usage). IT'S POSSIBLE.

Some folks are saying the result is ok, simply because it counter-balances the 4e threat. That's inadaquate. Two wrongs make a wrong. The point should be to make WitP more accurate.

Regards,
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 25
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 7:41:36 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
quote:

Feinder, that sounds like a really fun game. What exactly are you commanding? Just Army in India? Anything else.


Anything that flys a British or Indian flag. Planes, ships, LCUs. I'm a little shorthanded tho (despite my aquisition of a few Throwaways and B-17s). Prince of Wales and Repulse are still deployed to Austrailia (it's too risky to sail them to India at the moment). And I noticed a B-25 squdaron with SEAC command in Oz too, but again, too risky to sail them to India for now. I -was- in charge of everything "not American" (included Oz and Dutch), up until the last gasp of SRA. But since the SRA fell, it made more sense to turn over everthing in Oz-land to Dave (my brother), so he could integrate the defense of SoPac. So right now, I'm SEAC only (all types).

It's interesting to watch the developement of strategy over the past year-and-a-half; either from patches and from experience. I had dispbaned some RAAF squadrons with no rebuild, before anybody knew any better (ALWAYS return after 90 days!). I had a "fight-n-die!" attitude in SRA (and we made 'em pay pretty steep), but we didn't rescue anything from Malaya or SRA. Not a single LCU. Not a single BF. Simply didn't know any better, and certainly missing it now. Granted it works both ways. Our opponents didn't know any better on a lot of Japan's opening strategy (we were all just grouping thru our first PBEM after engaging the AI), so it has pretty much balanced out.

I've actually got a fairly new 1v1 game vs one of my opponents from this game. It's a VERY different game, simply because we've both a lot more experience (but we keep the team game going as well, it's intersting in it's own right).

-F-
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 26
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 9:22:59 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		statistics : how often strange /from both sides/ happen
what is average result
without this there is little sense with discussion

only way to discuss it is to recreate conditions in separate scenario and run it at least 30 times - take T-student probablity statistics and see.

as far as forts are concerned
8"+ guns were used  - most of fortifications - is vulnerable to this very heavy shels when hit directly and certainly planes are not immune to even  5" shells so fort level has little to offer
maybe against 5" yes
against 8" in some instances - as well as against 500lb bombs
against 14-16" - lightly


_____________________________


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 27
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 11:25:33 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		So you are saying a bombardment TF can come by at high speed and make direct hits on everything? I don't think so.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 28
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 11:30:49 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline 		AFAIK - the only BB TFs that were effective were ones that had troops on the ground.
This applies for both sides - the IJN bombardment of Henderson Field had a special spotter
landed to correct fire for the BBs.

American BBs pounded Japanese held islands for weeks without much effect except to make
the defenders angry. It wasn't until troops landed and could call in directed fire that the
bombardments seemed to be effective.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 29
RE: Utter BS - 6/23/2006 11:56:58 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
quote:

statistics : how often strange /from both sides/ happen
what is average result
without this there is little sense with discussion

only way to discuss it is to recreate conditions in separate scenario and run it at least 30 times - take T-student probablity statistics and see.


I'm offering. I'm happy to even create the scenario. Communtiy input welcome (preferred actually, to make sure it reflects what folks are dealing with in their game). We can have somebody host the scenario. And we'll allow anyone that so chooses to down-load it and run it. Have a thread, or simply this one, that folks can post their results.

I have a minor in Statistics and a degree in Software Developement. I've been a software developer for almost 15 years, and was SAS programmer for 4. Whatever "T-Student Probabilty" is (one of your classes I suppose), I'm sure I took something comperable, and few others besides. Be wary of simply trying to sound impressive with convoluted dribble, because most of the people on these boards are obviously considerably more educated than you think.



-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Utter BS Page: [1] 2   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

4.891