Don't forget that this piece of code would also have to be setup so that it only runs at Pearl Harbour and doesn't accidentally come into play at any other time. Oh look, only four battleships can ever be hit by torpedoes during ANY aerial attack.
Same basic consideration has to be made for any line of code. Are you suggesting that this is exceptionally challenging? Does the extant code routinely, for example, apply damage results from an air strike vs. Noumea to ships in Colombo? I thought not. So your rebuttal is more non-sequitur.
And the point of the moving ships is still valid.
Only to the extent that that anyone thinks that is important. Logically, even if one were to add the code that I have propsed, one would not add this additional piece of code if one were YOU because, after all, you object to all code on the grounds that it increases complexity. Of course, were YOU writing the software, apparently, then when the Japanese aircraft attacked Pearl Harbor there'd be a serious likelihood of a coding error such that the Kates wound up torpedoing a Japanese troopship in, say, the Shimonoseki Strait.
So not having this function is okay, but not having the first four BBs screen the others from torpedoes is an unacceptable abstraction?
If you can work out a simple routine that allows for this possibility but still makes the result "1 BB sunk the rest damaged" or (possibly, depending on what you think of the retirement of Oklahoma) "2 BBs sunk the rest damaged" then I'm game. Go for it. My major point is that "None sunk" is alot closer to "1 sunk" than is "8 sunk." My proposal is therefore more realistic than that which presently is.
Ah, so any attack at Pearl Harbour will have this happen. Gotcha. And that is a good thing?
I think so. PH had some rather unique characteristics for a port of that size in re its shallow bottom. But if you feel that a general routine needs to be incorproated for ALL shallow bottomed ports, feel free to list the rest and add them to the list. One could, for example, with such a list, treat a port as having virtual BB berths relative to port size. So a size 9 port could have 4 BB berths, with respect to resolving hits.
No one 'objects' to Matrix doing it. If they really want to, and can do it in some manner that doesn't make things work out in an idiotic manner, then more power to them.
Again, I thank you for being honest about that at least.
But the simple fact of the matter is, we know they won't.
I wonder. If I thought it was hopeless I'd not keep the subject alive. I notice that no one from the design team has chimed in with "No, we're not going to implement that idea." If they want to end debate on the matter they can chip in at any time. I was very patient in making the point about early war USN pilots vs Japanese pilots and it seems that eventually changes were made of which I approve. So, call me an optimist.
I think it has been stated several times that the subroutine can result in a very good showing, or a quite pathetic showing on the part of the IJN. I was just reading an AAR that had a very poor result actually.
I guess you do not understand the concept of central tendency. If you ran the PH strike 20 times, in how many of these would (a) only BBs be torpedoed, and (b) only two BBs be sunk? That should be the central tendency if one uses the historic IJN 7 Dec strike force. Now, if you are suggesting that it is equally likely that the overwhelming majority of Japanese aircraft will simply MISS their targets as sink 5 or more BB, I'd like to see the AARs that support that claim.
Again, the detail you want to add is extremely important, and yet other details aren't?
Non-sequitur. If you've got details issues, speal up for 'em. [;)]
let me assure you that you are completely and utterly wrong - for very debatable benefit.
The benefit is a matter for debate. On the simplicity, you are mistaken. You only wish for it to be complex because you'd prefer a routine in which it is likely that a historic start will result in far more damage in the PH raid than historically occurred.
And that is relevant to this... how?
It is relevant to the extent that you have attempted to divert the argument from the subject at hand by invoking argumentam ab authoritam to dismiss suggestions that you dislike. In this case, you and another claim to have a superior argument slolely on the grounds of expertise (rather than on the grounds of logic or desirability), presuming as you do that you know more of programming than I. You are possibly correct. But I have, at least, written real code for profit, and I (and not you) have offered pseudocode in this thread that you have not been able to crticise on any logical grounds. In short, your argument amounts to nothing more than "I don't want it to be done thus it can't be done and therefore should not be attempted."
I write code in the real world, the modern world, and I can guarentee that your idea is no where near as simple as you think it is.
And your "guarantee" is not worth the money that I've paid for it.
If that is your idea of complex, then you really are not up on modern coding. The basic logic to the routine is actually rather simple. But If I wanted to drop that into the middle of our HIS right now, that wouldn't be quite so simple. I could insert it, but would it be called properly, would it conflict with anything, would anything call it that shouldn't, would it pass on to the rest of the account number routine properly, etc.
Only if you are so talentless as to refer to the proposed subroutine using an already designated subroutine name/index or if you are so foolish as to specifically map individual subroutines to individual memory addresses. Even there, all you need to do is be organized enough to make a list. We're not talking about guidance software here.
Nice try, but obviously you don't know sh1t about us either.
I know enough about YOU to know that you can't admit when you are mistaken.
What about the USS Ward sinking a mini-sub? There should be a variable about whether this happens, and whether the report is dismissed by the senior officers.
Interesting. Since you equate the loss of 4 extra BBs with, in terms of importance, the loss of a mini sub, you would agree that the game should accord point values to sinking a USN pre-war BB with one fourth of the VP value of a mini sub. If not, why not?
