Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: dorjun driver

Smeulders,
Next time use RPN.[;)]

RPN ?

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

ORIGINAL: dorjun driver

Smeulders,
Next time use RPN.[;)]

RPN ?

Reverse Polish Notation. It's the syntax that many calculators used. Bearing in mind that calculators were not miniature super-computers like they are today, it was a very efficient way for well-practiced users to quickly enter formulas pretty accurately, within the limited memory & processing power of the calculator. Many people still swear by it.

Try Wikipedia, I'm sure they have an article on it.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Only if a LOT of people complain about the current situation. There is a great deal of truth in the old saw "It's the squeaking wheel that gets the grease". So "squeak" loudly, and encourage others to do likewise.

Actually, I'd say the opposite is true. The more emotional the arguments get (and hence the less historical with data and sources provided) the more we tend to ignore the discussion. Unfortunately sometimes this leads to ignoring things that should not be ignored. But that is probably better than paying attention to things that should be ignored just because a lot of noise is made.

I promise that our core team will NOT positively reinforce loud emtional ranting type behavior, but we will positively reinforce data driven arguments (with good sources provided).

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Only if a LOT of people complain about the current situation. There is a great deal of truth in the old saw "It's the squeaking wheel that gets the grease". So "squeak" loudly, and encourage others to do likewise.

Actually, I'd say the opposite is true. The more emotional the arguments get (and hence the less historical with data and sources provided) the more we tend to ignore the discussion. Unfortunately sometimes this leads to ignoring things that should not be ignored. But that is probably better than paying attention to things that should be ignored just because a lot of noise is made.

I promise that our core team will NOT positively reinforce loud emtional ranting type behavior, but we will positively reinforce data driven arguments (with good sources provided).

I think you purposely choose to "misunderstand". No one said anything about "loud emotional ranting". What I said was if you don't speak up when something in the game doesn't seem right, then you are doomed to see it remain part of the game. Silent "wheels" get ignored..., it's only when something "squeaks" that the owner gets out his grease gun and takes a look at it.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
I think you purposely choose to "misunderstand".

What I said stands, with no modification.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

You know, I'm actually not that distressed by the current in-game torpedo dud rates. I think it can be worked around.

....

I think the game allows the allied player (with AS support) *much* greater early war access to numbers of torpedoes than IRL. IRL, in the early war, USN subs were going on patrol with partial torpedo load-outs or 'hot-swapping' torpedoes from other SS coming into port for repairs or what not. ...

I agree. I think the current dud rates are balanced for the game. Change the numbers to some 'historically accurate' number and all you will do is break the game. There are a number of abstractions in the sub supply and combat. The current dud rate values are giving, what appear to me, to be anticipated results: sucky early war and on par late war. And tactics can be modified to improve the "standard" results if you wish to focus on them.

Focus on every little number and you don't have a game. In this case, the data doesn't exist better than we have. Extrapolating tonnage figures to dud rate is not statistically very sound. There are many more variables in the tonnage figures than simply torpedo dud percentage. Jwilkerson is right to take his stand ...

oh they were bad .........real bad, read Clair Blair's book about the American submarine campaign, a real eye opener as well as a brilliant read.

ORIGINAL: Jepo1501

oh they were bad .........real bad, read Clair Blair's book about the American submarine campaign, a real eye opener as well as a brilliant read.

You mean Clay Blair, correct? Silent Victory? Classic Read. His opinion was that torpedo faults weren't fixed until Sept 1943 (p.20). And there was a real shortage of both torps and subs as it seems they didn't ramp up the production facilities like they had the surface forces from 1939 - 1941. Oops.

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
You mean Clay Blair, correct? Silent Victory? Classic Read. His opinion was that torpedo faults weren't fixed until Sept 1943 (p.20). And there was a real shortage of both torps and subs as it seems they didn't ramp up the production facilities like they had the surface forces from 1939 - 1941. Oops.

US Torpedoes still had some various issues even in 1944. The following is a TROM excerpt from Nihon Kaigun website:

"10 March 1944:
At 1013, lookouts aboard Cdr Walter T. Griffith's USS BOWFIN (SS-287) sight four columns of smoke made by a convoy consisting of TSUKIKAWA and ASAKA MARUs and two unidentified ships screened by WAKATAKA and subchaser TAKUNAN MARU No. 5. At 1140, Griffith sets up and fires six bow tubes, but four of his unreliable Mark 14-3A torpedoes explode prematurely. A twin-engine Japanese bomber appears and forces BOWFIN under.

The escorts counterattack and drop 24 DCs near BOWFIN, but do no debilitating damage. One of the Japanese drags a grapnel or chain across BOWFIN’s hull at some 350 feet below the surface. When Griffith comes to periscope depth, he sees a freighter down by the stern being taken under tow. Despite the escorts and five circling aircraft, Griffith attacks the convoy, but cannot follow his torpedoes’ tracks because one of BuOrd’s finest threatens her by making a circular run. Griffith dives. "

Regards
Gilbert

Yes, that is where Lockwood got his justification for ordering sub captains to fire only 1-2 torpedoes at each target, and to under no circumstances turn off the magnetic detonator.  There were shortages of torpedoes throughout 1942 for subs, and Lockwood incorrectly believed that the magnetic detonator meant large torpedo salvos were no longer needed.  He expected "one shot, one hit" results and reprimanded many commanders who fired more than 2 torpedoes at any target.