I have no idea but your "QUOTE" line is always wrong... you quote the text I wrote but there is someone else's name cited... strange...
Something about the default parameters in the new software. Don' blame me, I only talk here.
In my imaginary plan the whole point of bombardment of Midway was to destroy its airfield, aircraft and airbase equipment. This all is in open, unprotected and easy to destroy (no shelter to hide and protect that stuff).
I understand what your claim is. I do NOT agree that it is all that easy to destroy, even when in the open. That's why I have suggested that you consider the Japanese bombardments at Guadalcanal. You have essentially idenitical circumstances, yet in no bombardment was the airfield shut down for more than an hour or so and in no circumstance were all the aircraft destroyed. As a result a/c that were on the airfield prior to the bombardment were still around attacking Japanese vessels immediately after the bombardment. While from a game standpoint it is unlikely that, say, 3 SBDs will ruin your day (in UV and in many paper stratsims), in the real world the real problem was that even 3 SBDs could ruin your day. You could lose a CV to one. THAT is why the IJN absolutely positively absolutely absolutely and without any doubt in any of the operational planners' minds (on the IJN side) GUARANTEE that Midway was not operational as an airbase. To DO that you MUST use aircraft.
Invasion might or might not come at all and that's not connected with initial night bombardment at all since all that bombardment needs to do is stop air activity from Midway. That is 100% achievable.
I'll bite. Name one instance in WW2 where a naval bombardment stopped air activity at a modest-sized airbase for any decisive interval of time. You say it is 100% achievable and I say it's almost 100% guaranteed not to work. I say look to Cactus for some prime examples.
Are you telling that what I wrote (in essence the USN way of doing things in 1944/1945) is wrong?
If you are asserting that the USN way of doing things in 1944-1945 was to shut down airbases via naval bombardment then I am asserting that you do not know how the USN shut down enemy airbases. Suppressing Japanese airbases was the mandate of fast carriers, not bombardment TFs. The Japanese also used CVs for that task. Both parties at the time understood that the only sure way to shut down an airbase was with airstrikes.
The USN put many dedicated TFs in close cooperation (and close together) but even under heavy kamikaze attacks there were no significant ship collisions and/or disorganization.
IMO the USN was better at it (but by 1944 they'd had alot more time to get good at it than, say, in 1942). In many of the high speed naval and air actions involving Japanese ships oeprating in close proximity there were collisions.
Mikuma vs.
Mogami. At least one collision in the sequence of battles around the Leyte gulf. One major collision IIRC in the night actions in October near Guadalcanal. Another major collision in the action in Surigao Strait.
Also, we very well know that high altitude level bomber attacks are almost useless against moving ships and that would be the only way to attack the approaching Japanese armada in my imaginary Midway plan.
I can't imagine why you'd be that cocky. The SBDs based on Midway got in their licks against the IJN TF, but they missed. One USN PBY at Midway torpedoed a Japanese auxiliary. If the Japanese TF is not using its a/c to suppress Midway, then the position and composition of the Japanese TF will be known to the USN throughout the battle. Under such circumstances you can almost guarantee that a USN coordinated strike will find you before you find the USN.
Your plan seems to rely wholly on improbable results. Even the real Japanese were not so blinkered as to pretend that they could either ignore Midway or get close enough to bombard it without dedicating a substantial amount of CV based air power to the job, and even the real Japanese knew that but a few enemy strike craft could pose a very mortal threat.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?