Shore Bombardment Nukes

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Shore Bombardment Nukes

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Shore Bombardment Nukes

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Shore Bombardment Nukes - 5/29/2008 12:01:14 PM

Knavey

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline

Question for Terminus (or another one of the AE team)...

I have been reading up on the changes and Terminus stated at one point that the days of nuclear shore bombardments were over.

My question is...can you tell us what went wrong in the code that causes the nukes in the stock game?

Thanks,

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

Post #: 1

RE: Shore Bombardment Nukes - 5/29/2008 1:02:11 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Nope. I'm not a code guy...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Knavey)

Post #: 2

RE: Shore Bombardment Nukes - 5/29/2008 10:16:13 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavey

Question for Terminus (or another one of the AE team)...

I have been reading up on the changes and Terminus stated at one point that the days of nuclear shore bombardments were over.

My question is...can you tell us what went wrong in the code that causes the nukes in the stock game?

Thanks,

Sure.

They were ahead of their time and were using depleted uranium shells. Turns out that some of them weren't so 'depleted' after all.

(in reply to Knavey)

Post #: 3

RE: Shore Bombardment Nukes - 5/30/2008 1:20:19 AM

Knavey

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline

Wait a minute...Time...because we are dealing with an isotopic half life here, it is impossible to be "ahead" of their time since the shells are always decaying! Or maybe they are decaying faster than normal and are actually ahead of themselves!

Is that why the second bombardment never does as well as the first? The shells have decayed a little in between?

Nucs...gotta hate them as much as Nukes!

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 4

RE: Shore Bombardment Nukes - 5/30/2008 2:11:29 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Depleted uranium has decayed. If you use it ahead of time it isn't all decayed yet. It's kind of like drinking sour milk while it's still fresh. Or sinking the Bismark after it was scuttled. Or was that before it was scuttled? I always get those mixed up.

(in reply to Knavey)

Post #: 5

RE: Shore Bombardment Nukes - 5/30/2008 2:33:35 AM

Knavey

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline

Oh crap...you just hijacked a perfectly good (although absolutely nonsensical) thread! Now let the Bismark debate begin!

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 6

RE: Shore Bombardment Nukes - 5/30/2008 3:54:25 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavey

My question is...can you tell us what went wrong in the code that causes the nukes in the stock game?

Ah, but the question assumes that something went wrong in the code! We cannot know whether that assumption is valid or not, because we do not know what the original design specifications required. Hence the code may be WAD or it may not be WAD. We cannot know.

I am not sure, but I have not specifically heard that this code was changed for AE. Even in stock, with adequate counter-measures, the tactic can be defeated.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Knavey)

Post #: 7

RE: Shore Bombardment Nukes - 5/30/2008 5:54:15 AM

Chad Harrison

Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Even in stock, with adequate counter-measures, the tactic can be defeated.

With what, 35,000 mines?

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 8

RE: Shore Bombardment Nukes - 5/30/2008 7:41:29 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

" With what, 35,000 mines?"

Surface Combat Task Forces

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Chad Harrison)

Post #: 9

RE: Shore Bombardment Nukes - 5/30/2008 9:27:51 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" With what, 35,000 mines?"

Surface Combat Task Forces

question is: "What do you prefer? Seeing one or two BBs and a couple of CAs badly mauled by an incoming IJN bombardment TF with two BBs first and then see your airfield / port nuked, or only seeing your airfield / port nuked?"

In my not so limited experience, it all comes down to recon. If the detection level of the base is high enough, you most likely see a nuke, if there was no recon, or not enough, then you will mostly get away without any damage.

_____________________________

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 10

RE: Shore Bombardment Nukes - 5/30/2008 2:15:24 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

question is: "What do you prefer? Seeing one or two BBs and a couple of CAs badly mauled by an incoming IJN bombardment TF with two BBs first and then see your airfield / port nuked, or only seeing your airfield / port nuked?"

Since when has a SCTF been mauled by an equal strength Bombardment TF?

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 11

RE: Shore Bombardment Nukes - 5/30/2008 11:08:37 PM

whippleofd

Posts: 617
Joined: 12/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavey

Wait a minute...Time...because we are dealing with an isotopic half life here, it is impossible to be "ahead" of their time since the shells are always decaying!� Or maybe they are decaying faster than normal and are actually ahead of themselves!

Is that why the second bombardment never does as well as the first?� The shells have decayed a little in between?

Nucs...gotta hate them as much as Nukes!�

Especially twidget's. There is something WAY wrong with a guy who manipulates a small plastic object to make rods go up and down.

Whipple

_____________________________

MMCS(SW/AW) 1981-2001
1981 RTC, SD
81-82 NPS, Orlando
82-85 NPTU, Idaho Falls
85-90 USS Truxtun (CGN-35)
90-93 USS George Washington (CVN-73)
93-96 NFAS Orlando
96-01 Navsea-08/Naval Reactors

(in reply to Knavey)

Post #: 12

RE: Shore Bombardment Nukes - 5/30/2008 11:16:44 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavey

My question is...can you tell us what went wrong in the code that causes the nukes in the stock game?

Ah, but the question assumes that something went wrong in the code! We cannot know whether that assumption is valid or not, because we do not know what the original design specifications required. Hence the code may be WAD or it may not be WAD. We cannot know.

I am not sure, but I have not specifically heard that this code was changed for AE. Even in stock, with adequate counter-measures, the tactic can be defeated.