Utter BS

[tsimmonds]

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....[;)]

[BLUESBOB]

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.

[greg_slith]

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.

[Mike Solli]

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 [X(]).  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.

[Feinder]

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-

[Feinder]

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-

[Sneer]

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

[Nomad]

So you are saying a bombardment TF can come by at high speed and make direct hits on everything? [&:] I don't think so.

[rtrapasso]

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.

[Feinder]

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-

[Sneer]

good
my contact with statistics instruments ended few years ago when i got promoted from analyst position...
but remember as it was yesterday from my university that if sb want to run short research about sth it is advisable to use it if number of runs is < 30 and as long as it is close to that value t-student probability distribution should be used to describe population.
normal distribution is not valid unless you want to run >30 or so
certainly there will be sb here with math degree who can take care with results


BTW Student was a nickname from Gosset -

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

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[X(]. 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.

Any chance you were using the same TF, IOW, the same commander?

[Feinder]

I'm glad you think it's such a fabulous idea sneer. As you pointed out, objectivity and repetition are crucial to a tests validity. Since I'm going to create the scenario (no small feat if you've ever actually created a scenario), I'm sure you'd like to volunteer to run the first round of twenty tests.

He're what I'll do.

Create a scenario with 4 bases. I might be able to use the Saipan scenario as a starting point but if the terrain types don't match Akyab, I'll just use Burma. No no biggie. But these four bases will have the same terrain type as Akayab (once again, we're trying to limit the amount of variables to be able to focus the test, but I'm sure you knew that!).

I can name the bases appropirately, so that when the combat comes up, it'll refect which base (and test) is being run.

Base #1 = A9 = Allied base with fort Level 9
Base #2 = A0 = Allied base with fort Level 0
Base #3 = J9
Base #4 = J0

Setting them up in this way will (hopfully) allow us to test the following:
1. Do fort levels have any reducing effect on bombardments? (I believe not, but that's for you to prove!).
2. Is there any bias for Japan or Allies in the bombardment routines? (Again, I believe nukes are -not- biased toward either side in execution).
3. Establish if available ops points (thru range) has any effect on the damage inflicted.
4. Attempt to establish a baseline thru repetition, and see if we can obvserve what triggers the massive "nuke" result. We can do this by...

The IJN bombardment TFs will each have
CL Sendai
CL Kuma
CA Suzuya
CA Atago
CA Myoko
BB Kongo
BB Kirishima

(matches the conditions of the bombardment mentioned previously, we're trying to duplicate the result after all).

There will be 10 IJN task forces, with the above ships listed in each. Set to bombard each of the F(0) and F(9) bases, there will be 5 TFs, one at range 1, one at range 2, and so forth, out to range 5.

I'll change the names of each ship so that it looks like :

CL Sendai - F0 - R1
CL Kuma - F0 - R1
CA Suzuya - F0 - R1
CA Atago - F0 - R1
CA Myoko - F0 - R1
BB Kongo - F0 - R1
BB Kirishima - F0 - R1

CL Sendai - F0 - R2
CL Kuma - F0 - R2
CA Suzuya - F0 - R2
CA Atago - F0 - R2
CA Myoko - F0 - R2
BB Kongo - F0 - R2
BB Kirishima - F0 - R2

Reflecting the base to bombardded, and the range that the group came from. What you'd end up seeing in the combat report is something like

---

Naval bombardment of A9


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 - F0 - R1
CL Kuma - F0 - R1
CA Suzuya - F0 - R1
CA Atago - F0 - R1
CA Myoko - F0 - R1
BB Kongo - F0 - R1
BB Kirishima - F0 - R1



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

Airbase hits 15
Airbase supply hits 18
Runway hits 142

---

See how that makes the job of analysis easier? I just knew you'd think it was pretty slick. But it's the communtity that will do the "analysis", not you or I, because objectivity rules!

Only one bombardment at each of the four bases per turn (obvioulsy, or you'd stack the damage).

Basically, I'll set up similar TFs for the Brits to bombard the Japanese bases. I was thinking of putting a typical, and relatively like-gunned, group together:

CL Dragon - F0 - R2
CL Durban - F0 - R2
CA Norfolk - F0 - R2
CA Dorsetshire - F0 - R2
CA Sussex - F0 - R2
BB Resolution - F0 - R2
BB Ramilles - F0 - R2

But you can pick the Allied ships, if you want, no big deal to me.

For each turn, there will be four bombardments, on against each base. You'll just select a TF from range 1, and send it to its destination, and likewise for the other three (4x tests at once). The combat results themselves will display all the relevent information for each test case.

You run the test 20x for range 1. 20x for range 2, and so forth until 20x for range 5. I completely agree with you, 20 tests will give us an excellent sampling!

===

And of course, anyone who doubts -your- obectivity (I have complete faith in you by the way), can run the tests themselves (I'll post the scenario for all to dowload). If somebody thinks your testing is questionable, all you have to do is tell 'em to dowload the test scenario, and run it for themselves.

It'll be "Put up, or shut up" time [;)].

=

Some things about the above bombardment that I can't include in the tests:
The minefield. In game, it's fairly large, but you can't place mines with the editor. So we'll have to do without.

There is a PT boat squadron with 4 PTs that triggered a combat before the bombardment. I can place them if you want, but frnakly I don't think it's absolutely nessary (since they obviously didn't mitigate the bombardment at all anyway). You call if you want them placed or not).

===

More to come, feedback early on our test plan is welcome. Natureally, sneer has to sign off on the test plan before I code the thing, but community input (objectivity and relevence) is requested.

Toddler needs breakfast, but I'll check back in shortly...

-F-

[Sneer]

how about randomiser - as far as i know it is fixed within save file so result may go same - similar ????

[ADavidB]

Setting them up in this way will (hopfully) allow us to test the following:
1. Do fort levels have any reducing effect on bombardments? (I believe not, but that's for you to prove!).
2. Is there any bias for Japan or Allies in the bombardment routines? (Again, I believe nukes are -not- biased toward either side in execution).
3. Establish if available ops points (thru range) has any effect on the damage inflicted.
4. Attempt to establish a baseline thru repetition, and see if we can obvserve what triggers the massive "nuke" result. We can do this by...

The other variable that should be kept as consistant as possible is TF commander. Can you identify opposing leaders whose command characteristics are closely alike?

I have experimented against the AI on the effect of changing commanders on naval battles and I convinced myself that differences in commanders make a difference in battle performance. (I've seen the same thing for air commanders and land commanders.)

And no, I have no intention of doing any sort of statistical analaysis - I'll leave it to you professionals...[;)]

Dave Baranyi

[worr]

ORIGINAL: Feinder


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

I'd say this is the expection.

My experience with IJN BBs on a bombardment mission is you are luck to do any damage. Once in a great while you get a good hit in but the norm seems to just dink the shore.

Worr, out

[Nomad]

Feinder, when you get the test senario built, sent it and instructions and I will run a number of tests for you. It it time to run the tests and publish the results. without controlled tests arguement is worthless. Let's start with the facts and then analize whether the game is right or not. [:)]

[Terminus]

"Analize"? Does that involve some sort of probe?

[Speedysteve]

LOL[:D]

[Feinder]

Randomizer - Actually, what you'll be doing is loading it as a new scenario as head-to-head (that way you can view damage to both sides).&nbsp; Then issue the orders for each of the 4x TFs to bombard.&nbsp; Check the damage.&nbsp; Then fire it up again.&nbsp; You can't run it successively, because the damage to the bases will need to be reset.&nbsp; But I've done fairly extensive testing (on other things), and it'll create the new random seed with each restart.&nbsp; Won't be a problem.
&nbsp;
TF commanders - good point.&nbsp; I'll set them all to the same stats.&nbsp; I'll ask Kurt will send me the name of the TF commander in his group, and I'll make clones of him for each TF.
&nbsp;
-F-