Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

In regards to the Pearl Harbor strike ... just remember there is one important variable that has been overlooked by many of you. I will now try to explain that variable...

About 40 years ago on the summer solstice at approximately 10:38 am EST the stars were arranged in such a fashion in the universe as to cause a radiological altering of my DNA sequencing. This unfortunately is not an uncommon event and many of you (not all but many) have also been so affected. The side effect of this alteration has been to impart a negative influence on random numbers generated in connection with my existence. On rare insistences when the stars in the universe achieve various different alignments this side affect can be mitigated.

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Well the range seems excessive, 5in shell hits at 20,000 yards? You would be lucky to hit anything with 6in shells at that range!


Day Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 56,88, Range 20,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
xAK Hokko Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Zinzan Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Giyu Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Kembu Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Anbo Maru

Allied Ships
CL Durban
DD Vampire
DD Electra

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMFoss

Here is a suggestion on the PH debate.  When the game comes out, recruit a group of forum members to do a series of tests and post their data.  Use different AI settings, etc.  Doing it this way we can accrue hundreds of PH strikes and get a more accurate data set.  If the results then seem unusually high, and it seems to affect the game, then the data can be shared with the dev team (if they are not the ones to collect it) and any changes can then be decided upon.  So, I am willing to start testing tomorrow.

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMFoss

Here is a suggestion on the PH debate.  When the game comes out, recruit a group of forum members to do a series of tests and post their data.  Use different AI settings, etc.  Doing it this way we can accrue hundreds of PH strikes and get a more accurate data set.  If the results then seem unusually high, and it seems to affect the game, then the data can be shared with the dev team (if they are not the ones to collect it) and any changes can then be decided upon.  So, I am willing to start testing tomorrow.

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMFoss

How do you read in this that I am requesting that the behavior of every attack in the game be altered? The debate is over data. I simply suggested a way to aquire enough data to put the debate to bed. Note: I did say and if it seems to affect the game and that the dev team could decide whether to act upon the data. In an earlier post, Erik basically said that if a large number of customers request a change, then they might tone it down. I am not criticizing the game, the developers, or even the results. I simply suggested a way to get enough data (after the game is released) so that reactions are not based on just a few results. If people are concerned, they may participate. If they are not, then they leave it be. What's the harm in data? The development team can then decide to act upon the data or not. It's their choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Well the range seems excessive, 5in shell hits at 20,000 yards? You would be lucky to hit anything with 6in shells at that range!


Day Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 56,88, Range 20,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
xAK Hokko Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Zinzan Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Giyu Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Kembu Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Anbo Maru

Allied Ships
CL Durban
DD Vampire
DD Electra

Against lumbering merchantmen?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMFoss

Here is a suggestion on the PH debate.  When the game comes out, recruit a group of forum members to do a series of tests and post their data.  Use different AI settings, etc.  Doing it this way we can accrue hundreds of PH strikes and get a more accurate data set.  If the results then seem unusually high, and it seems to affect the game, then the data can be shared with the dev team (if they are not the ones to collect it) and any changes can then be decided upon.  So, I am willing to start testing tomorrow.

The PH attack was a very unique tactical situation. You cannot ask them to alter the behavior of every attack in the game so that one unique attack comes off the way it originally did. This is getting ridiculous guys.

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Y'know...some folks keep comparing game results of the PH attack with the real deal, but we might remember the real attack was a crap shoot as well?..In hindsight, they wasted a lot of munitions in useless places, and might have done themselves a lot of good trashing the USN's oil yard right there at the harbor!..The oil yards provided the means for USN subs to conduct the war (as much as they could), fueled the flattops, and the much needed transports..

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Y'know...some folks keep comparing game results of the PH attack with the real deal, but we might remember the real attack was a crap shoot as well?..In hindsight, they wasted a lot of munitions in useless places, and might have done themselves a lot of good trashing the USN's oil yard right there at the harbor!..The oil yards provided the means for USN subs to conduct the war (as much as they could), fueled the flattops, and the much needed transports..

we all know how important it would have been for the Japanese to bomb the oil stocks at PH and it makes me wonder if the oil stocks would have been targeted in another wave? Have they been on the target list or was this totally overseen by the Japanese command. Makes you wonder as I wouldn´t call the people in charge of this attack total amateurs. I´m sure someone can point out their targets and what was prioritized (besides the carriers, battlewaggons and airfields).

thx

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

The oil tanks had berms around each one and a fire protection system in place; later wartime experience found that oil storage facilities were not easy targets to destroy from the air.  Each tank had to be hit directly and even then it was not a given that the oil would burn.  If it didn't, the berms would contain the spilled oil and it could be pumped back into surviving tanks or tankers. 

While a third strike targeting the repair and oil facilities would have certainly done some damage, the risk of losing more planes and pilots vs the ability to destroy those targets probably meant that Fuchida made the right decision not to send a third strike.  Smoke from earlier attacks, more US planes in the air, and fully alerted defenses would have made a third strike much more hazardous and less effective than the first two.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Y'know...some folks keep comparing game results of the PH attack with the real deal, but we might remember the real attack was a crap shoot as well?..In hindsight, they wasted a lot of munitions in useless places, and might have done themselves a lot of good trashing the USN's oil yard right there at the harbor!..The oil yards provided the means for USN subs to conduct the war (as much as they could), fueled the flattops, and the much needed transports..

we all know how important it would have been for the Japanese to bomb the oil stocks at PH and it makes me wonder if the oil stocks would have been targeted in another wave? Have they been on the target list or was this totally overseen by the Japanese command. Makes you wonder as I wouldn´t call the people in charge of this attack total amateurs. I´m sure someone can point out their targets and what was prioritized (besides the carriers, battlewaggons and airfields).

thx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick
No, I'd just like to see something that looks like it might be a game instead of a two year proctological exam.

Ok, I'm sure we could delay the release for a while to fully script the PH attack, since everyone knows that if you have bad luck and lose a few more BBs at PH, there's no way the Allies can win the rest of the war. Similarly, if the Japanese sink 0 BBs, which is about as likely as sinking 6 BBs in my test, the Japanese player should just restart - right?

Seriously though, I think folks that are very bothered by the fact that there is a bell curve on the PH results need to step back and remember that the war goes on for years and PH means very little. In addition, I'm sure that after release there will be a December 8th scenario for those that want their results to precisely match history every time.

Could we spend more time tweaking various factors of the PH attack? Yes, but the results right now are close enough, the results for the overall war in all situations are excellent and so we'd end up effectively making lots of little custom tweaks for PH and only PH, which doesn't seem like a good use of time for what would be fairly little return. I'd rather release AE and if a much larger body of results (and customers) after release suggest we should tone things down further in PH, we will.

Regards,

- Erik

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Unbelievable performance given what I remember about pre-war proving ground figures.

1. The best USN dive bombing performance against non-manoeuvring passive targets in peacetime was about 67% hits.
2. Half the US battleships were screened from torpedo attack--hence the use of heavy AP bombs against them.
3. The best USN level bombing performance against non-manoeuvring passive targets in peacetime was about 20-30% hits. This was the reason for the development of dive bombing.
4. The best USN torpedo attack performance against non-manoeuvring passive targets in peacetime was comparable to the level bombing performance. (At 800 yards, the target occupied about 30 degrees if it was stationary, and about 10 degrees if it was moving at 25 knots and had to be led. The pHit for a 10 degree target was about 10%.)

The historical performance statistics make good sense for non-manoeuvring surprised (but hardly passive) targets. 90-100% hits are well over the top.

Well then, we’ll just defer release until you provide us with a pseudo code specification that implements what you think is appropriate.

Since you are so damn smart and are the self anointed professional expert in all these areas, it should be a simple evening’s exercise for you. Otherwise bugger-off.

You are damn right I’m pissed. It’s people like you that make some of us feel like it’s just not worth it anymore. Maybe Joe and Erik and others will proceed, but far as I’m concerned, you and others like you can go whine and try to impress everybody else as much as you like. I’m finished.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
It's funny the same exact thing happened with the WITP release version 1.0. The initial Pearl Harbor attack could give just about any result from attack canceled due to bad weather to sinking ever US battleship. It was then toned down in later patches so much so that you are lucky if you even sink 1 or 2 battleships.

I even remember Erik stating it's very hard to sink a BB in port because 99% damage is sunk and they can be refloated!

History does repeat, it's just not to everyones liking!

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMFoss

Here is a suggestion on the PH debate.  When the game comes out, recruit a group of forum members to do a series of tests and post their data.  Use different AI settings, etc.  Doing it this way we can accrue hundreds of PH strikes and get a more accurate data set.