Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
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?
ORIGINAL: Luskan
Don't care about the whys and wherefors, there are plenty of startup options to influence the results (although I have had Kido Butai smothered in bad weather and unable to launch in an early build).
I just want to know what Frag's secret is - due to the allied CAP and flak if you pull zeroes off airfield duty, and assign them to naval attack a: their bombs are just too small to matter, and b: your results end up being WORSE for lack of escorts and strafed runways (greater disruption in your bomber waves, less torps and bombs launched - usually you don't sink any bbs by doing this).
Did you change the altitudes a bit? Tweak some squadron leaders?? Just PM it to me and I'll be sure to use it on Raver when we do our beta PBEM (when beta comes out).
I've had several ocasions where I've seen 5 battleships sunk, I've also had some ocasions where I've had no battleships sunk but 99 Sys and Float damage on most BB's.ORIGINAL: Luskan
Don't care about the whys and wherefors, there are plenty of startup options to influence the results (although I have had Kido Butai smothered in bad weather and unable to launch in an early build).
I just want to know what Frag's secret is - due to the allied CAP and flak if you pull zeroes off airfield duty, and assign them to naval attack a: their bombs are just too small to matter, and b: your results end up being WORSE for lack of escorts and strafed runways (greater disruption in your bomber waves, less torps and bombs launched - usually you don't sink any bbs by doing this).
Did you change the altitudes a bit? Tweak some squadron leaders?? Just PM it to me and I'll be sure to use it on Raver when we do our beta PBEM (when beta comes out).
ORIGINAL: 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).
ORIGINAL: Luskan
Tweak some squadron leaders??
UTAH didn't move..., that's where it was docked. It was used as a "target ship" forORIGINAL: 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.
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
UTAH didn't move..., that's where it was docked. It was used as a "target ship" forORIGINAL: 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.
gunnery practice and had a lot of timber reinforcement on the topsides. Speculation
is that it attracted as much attention as it got because from altitude it was mistaken
for a carrier.
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?
Torpedo hits are generated the same way they are the rest of the game. As to "more 800 kg shells" ... the PH attack begins with a set of "historical load outs." If you want something different, that's separate from how torpedoes are targeted in an attack on PH. The phenomena of whether torpedoes hit anything at all or whether more 800kg rather than torpedoes have no logical connection to the problem of how you apply a torpedo hit to a BB in the BB berths.
You are talking about a far more complex model where the port entity now has berths (ships) that tracks if the berth has been a target already and potentially disallows the use of certain types of weapons (that themselves are currently not tracked as to type of use allowed).
ORIGINAL: Becket
Not to take the thread off its current course, but I just noticed the ship type selector thingys at the top of Mr. Frag's initial screenshot. Looks to me like, in a crowded port (or, hopefully, the ship availability screen? Please?) you can click an option to only show a certain type of ship.
Grooooooovy.
ORIGINAL: 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?
You wouldn't get it
ORIGINAL: mdiehl
You've got, IIRC, 5 BB berths (sans the target ship Utah at a different berth). One of these has a minelayer inboard (iirc Oglala) and no ship outboard. The PH scenario begins with the assumption that the BBs are "in Pearl Harbor" and docked when the attack arrives. There are, therefore, at least three BBs that are screened of torpedoes, unless in your alternate universe Pearl Harbor has subsantially MORE BB berths than the real Pearl Harbor had.
Someone else brought up moving ships. The game does not allow any function for BBs changing from "in port" to underway during the resolution of the attack subroutine. Moreover, this is not terribly important, since the only BBs at PH that were capable of moving were the ones that were outboard anyhow.
