Carrier Battle with !scary! results

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
WITPPL
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:10 pm

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results

Post by WITPPL »

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Yeah [8|] - 3 destroyed, 12 damaged to A2A. V 14 destroyed 11 damaged to A2A

Think you need to re-assess my friend.

I know results from CRep but i was also watching animations very closely. IJN DBs and TBs literally bounced (and missed targets in result) from USN AA fire while USN were not giving a damn about it.

Any way: 2% vs 20% is something that should be noticed. In 42 with fresh elite IJN.
Image
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: WITPPL
IJN hace plenty of Nav search cap. My carrier TFs had plenty of search cap. Subs can add too. I came undetected and I was able to strike Luganville turn earlier. Yes, I was detected after Luganville atack. [:D]

Ok so add pilot fatigue and increased USN situational awareness due to Luganvillle strike.

I know a couple of players (including myself) who would have sent you back to Shortlands in rafts,
with low damage to their own fleet. You were lucky given the situation. [;)]
Image
User avatar
WITPPL
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:10 pm

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results

Post by WITPPL »

ORIGINAL: castor troy

It clearly was weather. Severe storms vs. heavy cloud. Everything that is not something with rain is "good" weather when it comes down to hits and everything from light rain to thunderstorms is bad. It hits both sides the same and we have seen this happening how many times already?

wow, in two days I turn into a game defending ranter.

Troy, where am I against the game exactly? [8D]

Probably weather, although based on animated combat reports I blame USN flak.
Image
User avatar
WITPPL
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:10 pm

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results

Post by WITPPL »

@LoBaron: Pilots were under 15 fatigue.
Image
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results

Post by LoBaron »

Every bit helps. [;)]
Image
User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2083
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results

Post by denisonh »

One result is not enough to evaluate the model. Any good combat model will have a wide range of outcomes. This is not chess. Given the complexities of layering different models together and expecting the overall result to be the "expected outcome" is unrealistic. The chaos inherent with modeling combat that has very few observations and multiple contributing factors requires this range of outcomes so you can achieve a "Midway" like outcome.

Somebody has to pick up the slack now that Herwin has passed.........
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
User avatar
WITPPL
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:10 pm

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results

Post by WITPPL »

That is why we love this game so much.

Edit: I hate apple keyboards
Image
User avatar
Blackhorse
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Eastern US

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results

Post by Blackhorse »

ORIGINAL: denisonh

One result is not enough to evaluate the model. Any good combat model will have a wide range of outcomes. This is not chess. Given the complexities of layering different models together and expecting the overall result to be the "expected outcome" is unrealistic. The chaos inherent with modeling combat that has very few observations and multiple contributing factors requires this range of outcomes so you can achieve a "Midway" like outcome.

Somebody has to pick up the slack now that Herwin has passed.........

You're not there, yet. I actually understood what you were saying. [;)]


, , , to Herwin
WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: castor troy

wow, in two days I turn into a game defending ranter.

Go Castor Troy!!! [:)]
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5515
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results

Post by Yaab »

250 kg AP vs 1000lb SAP.  Nothing to see here, move along!
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results

Post by crsutton »

I am glad that Admiral Nagumo was not posting on this forum after the battle of Midway......We would have had to set him straight.[;)]
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
WITPPL
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:10 pm

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results

Post by WITPPL »

[:D][:D][:D]
Image
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Carrier Battle with !scary! results

Post by crsutton »

God, I posted the same thing twice...Pass it off as a senior moment..
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”