I take your explanations of the ranking of likelihood to initiate surface combat being based on the type of TFs involved and it certainly seems very reasonable and in keeping with what one would expect. But when you try to expand this reasonable explanation into something it isn't you run into trouble...
Program looked at possible encounter decided it was a non event and turned it into a spotting report. Thats all it was don't try to read more into it.
Hmm, no a spotting report isn't all we are dealing with. We are dealing with an actual surface action in which not only did an AK and a bombardment TF spot eachother but the bombardment TF get hit by two shells from the AK.
An insignificant combat? Yes but definitely a combat and therefore not simple a spotting report. Again, I only commented as I thought it was an amusing result but I do object to it being explained away using statistically questionable or otherwise spurious arguments.
A single AK came across a bombardment TF, was well within the range of the bombardment TFs main and secondary armaments, hit the BB with 2 shells and then escaped into the night with NO answering fire from the Japanese ships. The next day when the same ships came back in a bombardment TF ( with less ammo) they sank 3 ships. The ops points used were exactly the same ( as both runs began in the same hex ) and the ammo situation was even worse yet combat was joined with good results for the Japanese.
So, could it all have been an outlier? Surely it could have been but statistically speaking that "explanation" is used to defend strange combat results far too often to hold water. They can't all simply be outliers.
