Ineffective PH attack?

[Mynok]

I think what JWE is trying to say nicely is that 'tightening up' isn't going to happen and scenario 6 is the best they can do for you.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Mynok
I think what JWE is trying to say nicely is that 'tightening up' isn't going to happen and scenario 6 is the best they can do for you.

No, no. I have no agenda on any of this. I'm just naturally curious, that's all.

[witpqs]

Well I do not think that the PH results should be 'tightened up'. I like the variability. IRL we only know what happened in the one instance, we do not (cannot) know what the odds were. Maybe the results as obtained were 80% likely, or maybe they were 1 in 10. We just can't really know. So, I think tightening up around the one IRL result might just result in a worse 'simulation' aspect of the game because we would be skewing the game odds toward one particular roll of the dice result obtained IRL.

In my AI starts I have only seen either 0 or 1 PH BB sunk I think 1 time out of about 5 or 6 starts. The rest of the time the BB's get blasted big time, usually over several days. One time a BB was sunk by a single midget sub torpedo.

Historiker, I think you are just having bad luck, so to speak.

[Historiker]

Well, many people have seen just the opposite results and are screaming about over-effective PH strikes. And just about everybody is complaining about Force Z always getting whacked. So, I guess everybody wonders why ...

And that's what I do! I don't ask for a historic start scneario but whether anybody knows the reason for the uselss PH-strikes.

apparently nobody knows.

[loricas]

i' m made same test changing nothing also (scenario 1) i don't know if there are same change in 2:

20 run: force Z 3 both sink (1 time 1 DD also), 6 1 sink 1 damaged around 50%, 4 both damaged, 3 1 damaged 1 save, 3 both save or very light damage: depending a lot on Buffalo CAP presence/performance
,
PH: 2 time 6 BB, 1 time 5 BB, 3 time 3 BB, 5 time 2 BB, 6 time 1 BB, 3 time none: depending on presence of CAP, even if none came in contact with bomber end more with the number of nate carring torpedo (BB sunk first day or immediately after due to high fire on board, real result no FOW)

so i think there is a big range of results, where the most usual is 1 or 2 BB, around the same that in WITP , where i think there is a mistake is in the low nomber of aircraft loss for KB from 10 to 15 never more...

these changing nothing (and scen 1)..if your question is what to change to have better result (on average)..is another questions

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Well I do not think that the PH results should be 'tightened up'. I like the variability. IRL we only know what happened in the one instance, we do not (cannot) know what the odds were. Maybe the results as obtained were 80% likely, or maybe they were 1 in 10. We just can't really know. So, I think tightening up around the one IRL result might just result in a worse 'simulation' aspect of the game because we would be skewing the game odds toward one particular roll of the dice result obtained IRL.

Actually, yes we can. Please name all the things that went wrong tactically during the attack. Strategically, the carriers weren't there, which was a dissappointment..., but during the actually attack every problem the Japanese had anticipated failed to arise. Total suprise, no CAP, AAA unmanned..., you name the advantage and the Japanese had it. So in reality, the historical results were pretty much the top end of what could be expected from this attack. You can name all kinds of things what would have created worse results, but none that would create better ones.

You can say that more bombs could have hit..., but that's bull. These were the best pilots in the IJN, operating under optimum conditions, and this is what they achieved. Too say that they could have done 3-4 times better is just not statistically viable.

[morganbj]

Well, I'm one of those that complained about being hit for SIX straight days at PH.  For five of those days, the KB was three hexes away and there was little I could do but send out a few destroyers and a CL to try to do some damage.  A lucky hit maybe.  Eventually, though, I spoted a tanker TF and tore it up with my DD's.  As the KB moved away on day six, I actually sank two of the CV's and hit a CVE pretty badly with my CAG's.  I had moved my CV's to a couple of amush positions to the east and south of Midway.  Although the KB was pretty crafty at avoiding discovery, I finished off the two CV's that my DD's had done some damage to.  I hit the CVE with a lucky raid just south of Midway on about day eight to finish the action.  Its CAP was probably scattered all over Oahu or below deck getting repaired.
 
But, as my game as progressed, it really didn't make much difference as it turns out.  It's early 43 and I've already got about 133% score advantage that is increasing every day, si I will easily "win."  I've lost no CV's of any flavor (pretty close a few times) and have taken out 6 Japanese CV's and two CVE's.  The KB only has one surviving carrier, I think.  But, I play the game to try to simulate the war as much as I can, not to "win."  I like trying different strategies and such.  So "winning is not all that important.
 
I have to say that it was actually kind of fun, but I would still argue that something like that was not very likely to happen in 1941.  I don't think the IJN would risk its carriers by hanging around getting less and less results due to increasingly damaged planes and lost pilots.  The last three days of the onslaught, the attacks were MUCH less effective as the raids were much smaller.  The extra losses to them just weren't worth it.  In future engagements, I could tell that the KB had lost most of its punch.
 
I guess I'm one of those that would like to see something closer to the real events, too.  A little less variability is the key.  I may start my next game with the December 8th scenario, but there's something very sentimental about seeing the Arizona sail out to sea after being fixed up in dry dock.  I plan on using her to bombard Tokyo one day, if I can.
 
So, I don't have a big problem with the PH situation.  I can live with it as it is. 

[loricas]

the first thing you can change: the Kate group of two CV (54 in total) that are setting to strike PH airfield.

the second: split the torpedo bomber groups in three part: is more difficult to keep extreme result but the average is a little more high

in WITP pay high put additional pilot in from start: not here: came with low experience (compared with the yet presents) so they are a damege in the first strike...can be useful obiouvsly if you think to made more than 1 strike.

and also: assure the pilots that hitting PT with port full of capital ship grant harakiri next day[;)]

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

You can say that more bombs could have hit..., but that's bull. These were the best pilots in the IJN, operating under optimum conditions, and this is what they achieved. Too say that they could have done 3-4 times better is just not statistically viable.

You can't even measure '3-4 times better'. What does that mean? More ships sunk? Oil storage destroyed? It's meaningless statistically and any other quantifiable way.

Could they have sunk more ships? Of course. Likely? No.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Well I do not think that the PH results should be 'tightened up'. I like the variability. IRL we only know what happened in the one instance, we do not (cannot) know what the odds were. Maybe the results as obtained were 80% likely, or maybe they were 1 in 10. We just can't really know. So, I think tightening up around the one IRL result might just result in a worse 'simulation' aspect of the game because we would be skewing the game odds toward one particular roll of the dice result obtained IRL.

Actually, yes we can. Please name all the things that went wrong tactically during the attack. Strategically, the carriers weren't there, which was a dissappointment..., but during the actually attack every problem the Japanese had anticipated failed to arise. Total suprise, no CAP, AAA unmanned..., you name the advantage and the Japanese had it. So in reality, the historical results were pretty much the top end of what could be expected from this attack. You can name all kinds of things what would have created worse results, but none that would create better ones.

You can say that more bombs could have hit..., but that's bull. These were the best pilots in the IJN, operating under optimum conditions, and this is what they achieved. Too say that they could have done 3-4 times better is just not statistically viable.

Mike - I agree with what you write here. It's just that you are addressing a different question. Yes, I too think the results were on the high end. Given that the carriers were absent just how much could have gone better? Not a whole lot. But the point I am making is this: we cannot know what was the likelihood of the attack turning out that way? Sure, we can rule out 100%. We can rule out the really low percentages too. But what was it - 20% likely, 80% likely, 50% likely? The world wonders! So when we look at the game results from 1,000 Pearl Harbor attack runs, it is hard for us to know how true to the real life odds are those game results. Should the "average" be two BB's sunk (game equivalent to real life results), none sunk, 5 sunk, etc.? Dunno.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

You can say that more bombs could have hit..., but that's bull. These were the best pilots in the IJN, operating under optimum conditions, and this is what they achieved. Too say that they could have done 3-4 times better is just not statistically viable.

You can't even measure '3-4 times better'. What does that mean? More ships sunk? Oil storage destroyed? It's meaningless statistically and any other quantifiable way. They sank two BB's under optimum conditions..., so to sink 6 or 8 would be "3 to 4 times better" and statistically unviable without some improvement in the situation (of which there were none available).

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Well I do not think that the PH results should be 'tightened up'. I like the variability. IRL we only know what happened in the one instance, we do not (cannot) know what the odds were. Maybe the results as obtained were 80% likely, or maybe they were 1 in 10. We just can't really know. So, I think tightening up around the one IRL result might just result in a worse 'simulation' aspect of the game because we would be skewing the game odds toward one particular roll of the dice result obtained IRL.

Actually, yes we can. Please name all the things that went wrong tactically during the attack. Strategically, the carriers weren't there, which was a dissappointment..., but during the actually attack every problem the Japanese had anticipated failed to arise. Total suprise, no CAP, AAA unmanned..., you name the advantage and the Japanese had it. So in reality, the historical results were pretty much the top end of what could be expected from this attack. You can name all kinds of things what would have created worse results, but none that would create better ones.

You can say that more bombs could have hit..., but that's bull. These were the best pilots in the IJN, operating under optimum conditions, and this is what they achieved. Too say that they could have done 3-4 times better is just not statistically viable.

Mike - I agree with what you write here. It's just that you are addressing a different question. Yes, I too think the results were on the high end. Given that the carriers were absent just how much could have gone better? Not a whole lot. But the point I am making is this: we cannot know what was the likelihood of the attack turning out that way? Sure, we can rule out 100%. We can rule out the really low percentages too. But what was it - 20% likely, 80% likely, 50% likely? The world wonders! So when we look at the game results from 1,000 Pearl Harbor attack runs, it is hard for us to know how true to the real life odds are those game results. Should the "average" be two BB's sunk (game equivalent to real life results), none sunk, 5 sunk, etc.? Dunno.

"what was the likelihood of the attack turning out that way?" What way? Perfect? That's basically what happened historically..., and the justification for my statement that "things couldn't have gone much better for the Japanese". Worse maybe (weather-wise if no other way..., but what about someone paying real attention to the Ward's report of sinking a sub? Or the radar sighting report?) Things could have gone worse that morning based on historical fact..., but how could they have gone better? If someone can legitimately answer that question, maybe I could buy into these nonsensical results of "4-8 BB's sunk".

It's bad enough we've got a situation which almost guarantees an a-historical second day of strikes..., can't we at least begin with something that resembles history?

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

I've seen a lot of "PH strike broken?" threads where everyone claims that the strikes are too effective.
Well, in 15 test runs of my scenario 2 PBEM, I never sank a single BB in PH. I didn't change anything with the KB and use the latest public patch.

Did you run 15 brand new games? Just curious if there might be an issue with when the random number seed is generated.

[stuman]

For what it is worth I have now started my second GC, Historical, playing as Allies. The first game was pre -patch. I had 1 BS sunk at PH ( POW and Repulse were both sunk though ).

I restarted , post patch, Historical. Again, 1 BS sunk at PH ( though lots of damage to the survivors). However POW and Repulse are still afloat. Actually I am playing Scen 2 ( the Japan gets more stuff version ). So seems like twice now the Japanese have had worse results than in real life.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
... can't we at least begin with something that resembles history?

I thought they called that the Dec 8th scenario?

[madgamer2]

Perhaps in the next version (AE 2 WitP 2, etc) it might be possible for the Japan side to have greater choice of what ships start where. Yamamoto knew if the CV's were not in PH the attack was a basic washout. His line "I fear all we have done is wake a sleeping giant and fill it with a great rage". sort of says it all.
What I am getting at is being able to put some TF's in a totally different place. Why do we have to bomb PH all the time?
What happens if the KB is in the PI or DI areas. Starting the war our own way would be fun.

Madgamer

[bklooste]

Please read the comments this is ONLY scenario 2 and using the second patch please dont taint the thread with other scenario results....There is another thread for that.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: Historiker

I've seen a lot of "PH strike broken?" threads where everyone claims that the strikes are too effective.
Well, in 15 test runs of my scenario 2 PBEM, I never sank a single BB in PH. I didn't change anything with the KB and use the latest public patch.

Did you run 15 brand new games? Just curious if there might be an issue with when the random number seed is generated.

No, I didn't...

Difficult questions sometimes have a simple answer... I just reran the same 0BB sunk strike again and again as I changed nothing on both sides...


This was in fact the answer I was looking for. I didn't look for another scenario nore was I claiming that something is broken. I just didn't understand why - now I do.

Thank you Mynok.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
... can't we at least begin with something that resembles history?

I thought they called that the Dec 8th scenario?

Not quite..., December 8th is EXACTLY history. I'm asking that December 7th more closely resemble the historical result, not that it reproduce it exactly. To often the results come out more on the order of "Hirohito has a wet dream".

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: madgamer

Perhaps in the next version (AE 2 WitP 2, etc) it might be possible for the Japan side to have greater choice of what ships start where. Yamamoto knew if the CV's were not in PH the attack was a basic washout. His line "I fear all we have done is wake a sleeping giant and fill it with a great rage". sort of says it all.
What I am getting at is being able to put some TF's in a totally different place. Why do we have to bomb PH all the time?
What happens if the KB is in the PI or DI areas. Starting the war our own way would be fun.

Madgamer

Play December 7th, but with "historical start" OFF. You can send KB anywhere you want.