Posted by mdiehl
I've "based" none of my arguments on UV. My arguments are based on the historical hit rates day, night, and combined.
Try your following quote :
So, adding a "torp first" subroutine with modal hit rates of 3-6% and occasional hit rates of about 16% would necessarily mean reducing the accuracy for "non initial torp salvo" shots, to preserve the 12% mean that the sim seems to generate reasonably well.
The above arguement was based around the stipulated UV hit rate of 12%. You stated that because the UV "sim" had that mean torp hit rate, the introduction of the early torp launch would neccessarily have to degrade later hit rates to keep UV's mean at 12%. I'll make it even more obvious than you did. Your whole arguement about reducing non early-launch hit rates to compensate, would not have had any basis without your claim of UV having the mean hit rate of 12%. Looks like an arguement based on UV to me (even if it was wrong).
************
Since you have evaded the question as to whether different hit rates were presumed for different visbility conditions in UV, I have reliably referred to all 3 along the way.
So, now I'm evading. When did you ask me the above question???
************
The number is 10% on double checking. It was posted in one thread ("Should the Japs just scuttle...") by "Rowlf" in response to a post from *you* (Drongo). As it is the only estimate of torp hit rates available in the threads it is the only fact in evidence and therefore the only germane piece of information about the hit rates that UV may provide. Feel free to provide better test data.
Well, thank you for finding where you got the 12% torp hit rate figure from.
Okay, Rowlf was simply talking about 1 battle. He had said :
"Torpedoes were flying all over the place. They only hit on small fraction of the torpedoes fired (maybe 10% or so for the Japanese). As for me, the only one that succeeded was the Achilles."
So Rowlf's casual observation of IJN torps fired in one battle only hitting a small fraction of the time ("maybe 10% or so") was then used by you to become "but a previous user did note roughly 12% hits in battles of all types." And after that statment, you were then off and running with your arguement that since this definitive figure of 12% matched your view of history, no one should now request the introduction of changes that may give the IJN any increase in accuracy, without a corresponding reduction elsewhere.
***********
As it is the only estimate of torp hit rates available in the threads it is the only fact in evidence and therefore the only germane piece of information about the hit rates that UV may provide.
Are you for real? You're building your arguement on Rowlf's casual guestimate of what happened in one battle? That led you to state :
"In short: like it the way it is, or accept lower overall hit rates with the very uncommon (about 10%) occurrence where the IJN launches an all torp initial attack *and* many (about 16%) of the torps hit."
Sounds like a statement based on the use of (what you thought) was a UV fact. You seriously should go play the game to avoid things like this happening.
************
Feel free to provide better test data.
Thats exactly what some of us were trying to do until version 2.0 came along.
************
One may infer that the base IJN hit rates should be reduced if there is an initial torp salvo because *many* posters have noted that the night combat routine seems fine as is and tends to produce a majority of IJN wins in surface engagements at the beginning.
Oh dear, *many* posters? So now everyone is to stop their efforts because you feel that *many* other people feel the combat results are just fine? Some arguement. I wont ask you to name them. :p
I'd point you at the IJN poll which infers a different story except that it might have changed by the time you look. That would just give you more ammo.
************
Since UV does not attempt to capture in detail the many serendipitous initial conditions that had nothing to do with night combat training or torp initial salvos, the model seems to abstractly produce the "correct" results without the initial torp salvo subroutine.
Based on what? The opinion of someone who has never seen the game? Whose "correct" results and based on what?
The reality is that people who play the game and feel the IJN are underdone when compared to their own view of history, should and do say so in these forums. And when several people with the same view link up, they will have a tendency to discuss solutions. They paid for the game, they have a right to state their dislikes. You can obviously disagree with their view of history but I think you should be bloody careful about "inferring" UV facts and figures when you've never even played the game.
Feel free to lash out with a return post but I'm about to head off to do some diving in Fiji for 10 days, so if I don't reply, its nothing personal.:p
And no, I'm not doing any duty free shopping for you.
