Santa came early ...

[Mr.Frag]

The absolute best PH result I have ever seen!

[mdiehl]

Pretty generous results. Way too many torpedo hits to be realistic. Both on the light vessels and on the BBs (of which only about half COULD be hit by torps since the other half were inboard to the berths).

[madflava13]

mdiehl-
Get off the inboard battleships taking torpedo hits issue. Its been discussed ad nauseum - unless we run this puppy on Crays, we won't be able to simulate the exact berths of every ship in every harbor. Let's move on...

[mdiehl]

1. I was not aware it had been discussed ad nauseam.

2. I'll stop mentioning it when I see it fixed. In the meantime you can "move on" if you like. The thread would be better off w/o your insight ('I can't or do not want to imagine any solution so drop it!'). So please, do as you advise, and move on. Scamper. Hit the road. Bug out. P1ss off.

3. It'd be an easy fix and not require modeling each berth in the port. Most children could figure this one out. The code for the PH attack simply applies torpedo hits only to the first four BBs that are hit. Included in the list of available targets is the Utah, so if one of the first torps happens to hit Utah then it serves, as it did historically, as a munitions soak.

[madflava13]

The point you are missing is this won't be fixed to historical satisfaction without massive processing speeds, which I know I cannot afford. I'd guess many others here don't have access to a T1 line, nor can they purchase time on Cray supercomputers.

Your solution is simplistic and unrealistic. If Utah takes the first torpedo, then California might not get hit. That wouldn't be historical. Some point down the road, someone with blinders on such as yourself would probably scream bloody murder. My problem isn't one of "I can't or do not want to imagine any solution" as you so eloquently put it. My thought process is more along the lines of "There's no realistic solution that we can afford, nor one that will appear within the next year, so let's live with it and move on."

The way the system is set up now, we are getting historical results without adding years and millions of dollars to the development budget. I can live with a small fib here as long as there aren't 8 sunk battleships and 150 Japanese planes shot down. The result that was posted is the only one I've seen where the IJN gets this lucky. Unless you have some better way to set up WITP that doesn't require mathematical computations, you have to accept the occasional outlier...

[tsimmonds]

Counted 26 torp hits in the result. IIRC there were 19 or twenty hits in the actual attack. Five of the BBs were hit, not 4. Arizona was inboard of Vestal, which did not completely mask it; Arizona took one torpedo.

[Mr.Frag]

Just so you know, that is only the second time in the history of testing this game (probably about 2000+ turn 1's) that I have ever sunk 5 BB's.

Many more times I have been stuck with the exact opposite result ... no BB's sunk.

I guess it really comes down to preferences, if you wanted to go down the path that only the first 4 BB's got targeted by Torps, you would end up with something even screwier, which is a lot more 800 KG bombs being dropped after the Kates burned off their targets.

The 18" type 91 Torpedo has an effect of 529, The 800 KG bomb has an effect of 1200 (it also has a higher accuracy).

If you want less torpedoes, you'll actually have MORE damage done.

[mdiehl]

The point you are missing is this won't be fixed to historical satisfaction without massive processing speeds, which I know I cannot afford. I'd guess many others here don't have access to a T1 line, nor can they purchase time on Cray supercomputers.

The point you are missing is that the solution that I offered requires less code than the amount of your aforequoted text. No cray required. A freakin Apple II could do the job.

Your solution is simplistic and unrealistic.

Simple yes. Unrealistic no. What's 'unrealistic' about a solution that produces results that are more plausible than the ones that derive absent said solution? The process may be unrealistic but, well, the entire game as a process is 'unrealistic' since it is after all a simulation.

If Utah takes the first torpedo, then California might not get hit. That wouldn't be historical.

Four BBs not taking torpedoes would be far more 'historical' but, even more important if you assume that ahistorical things should be allowed to happen, far more realistic than the present routine. If the possibility of spending some of your effort on Utah fills you with dismay and the designers feel the need to throw yet another bone to the pro-Axis crowd, keep Utah out of the OOB.

Some point down the road, someone with blinders on such as yourself would probably scream bloody murder.

So, a fellow like you, who have your head up your poop chute, would rather guarantee that the complain WILL be leveled about the PH attack routine rather than take the chance that some person might complain because the game is more realistic with the implementation of ten lines of code.

My problem isn't one of "I can't or do not want to imagine any solution" as you so eloquently put it. My thought process is more along the lines of "There's no realistic solution that we can afford, nor one that will appear within the next year, so let's live with it and move on."

The solution that I offered is elegantly simple, eminently doable, and more likely to produce realistic simulation than your proposal. It's on the table now. Pretending that the solution require a CRAY or simply can't be implemented is trivial sophistry. The solution is to hand NOW. All that needs to be done is for Matrix to ignore YOU.

[mdiehl]

Frag. Not fewer torpedoes. Same number of torpedoes and more redundancy in torpedo hits on BBs. Thus fewer BBs attacked using the same number of torpedoes.

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Frag. Not fewer torpedoes. Same number of torpedoes and more redundancy in torpedo hits on BBs. Thus fewer BBs attacked using the same number of torpedoes.

Ok, then you want to basically say that 4 BB's will sink no matter what. If you take all the torpedoes that get spread out over all the ships and have them only hit 4 out of the list of ships hit, it will be massive overkill.

As it sits right now, you can have games where 0 BB's sink, it is luck of the draw right now. Most times, less then 4 sink.

[mdiehl]

Shoudn't be "massive overkill." If you've got lots of 1 hit kills with IJN aerial torps then, well, you know what I'm going to say. BBs were alot tougher than the 1-hit and out punching bags that the results seem to be generating.

So, I'd say, lots of accumulated torp hits on a few ships. These sink. Most get raised. Only CHs remove capitol ships in PH from play.

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
So, I'd say, lots of accumulated torp hits on a few ships. These sink. Most get raised. Only CHs remove capitol ships in PH from play.

Ships that are "sunk" are sunk. Period. Ships with 99 sys damage are the ones that would be considered sunk in real-life but they are "raisable" in the game in the sense that they can be repaired.

[mdiehl]

Fine. The most common outcome, then, should be "1 BB sunk," and 4 BBs not reachable by torpedo.

[tiredoftryingnames]

I see no use in coding a special result based on 4 BBs outboard at Pearl on Dec 7th. That's one turn when randomly with the current system you can get 0 to 5. If you did code it you couldn't apply it to the rest of the game as who is to say what BBs are inboard and which ones are outboard in any port at any time in the game. This game is a simulation of the whole war and it would never be released if you made special rules to "recreate" specific situations in minute detail. Besides who wants to play a game that plays out exactly as history did. Give me some options to change things and some randomness. I'm quite happy when I play with whatever results I get at Pearl as it would get boring to me if every time the results are the same. Sometimes I lose less ships, sometimes I lose more. Just like if you could go back in time I doubt Pearl Harbor would result the exact same way. Too many variables.

[mdiehl]

Besides who wants to play a game that plays out exactly as history did.

This non-sequitur gets deployed so often it deserves a name. How about "The Logical Fallacy Involving the Crate of Raw Eggs, the Fourth Floor Roof, and the Blind Experimentalist."

For simplicity we'll refer to it as: "Why Does It Always Go Splat? Fallacy" or the WDIAGS Fallacy.

Mike Scholl, Pasternakski, what do you think?

Tired... do you really need to be led through an explanation of the difference between deterministic vs. central tendency models?

[Mr.Frag]

Tired... do you really need to be led through an explanation of the difference between deterministic vs. central tendency models?

mdiehl, do you really need to be led through an explanation of the difference between functional code and introducing changes that really serve no purpose into functional code?

You are falling into the exact same trap you generally accuse others of.

Who says the BB's happened to be tied up in that order? Who says that the order of the air strikes is exactly the same and not shuffled around allowing torpedo strikes to go where there was a ship previously? Who says any torpedoes hit at all? Who says that instead of torpedoes, more 800 kg shells were available and only they were dropped due to fear of netting?

[rogueusmc]

The Utah moved....It lays on the other side of Ford Island. Ships moved during the attack....they didn't stand still. Thus, it is feasible to have any or all the BBs hit with torps.

[madflava13]

rogueusmc's got it... Maybe Vestal moves, Arizona never takes the critical hit, but then gets torpedoed 3 times... Any number of things could happen here, and the code as it stands allows that to occur.

[LargeSlowTarget]

A scenario start set in the afternoon of Dec 7th - ships at PH preset as damaged or sunk just like it happened IRL - would solve the issue for those who want historical results for the opening shots.

[rogueusmc]

This makes sense....as an option that is.