Shore Bombardment Nukes

[Knavey]

Question for Terminus (or another one of the AE team)...

I have been reading up on the changes and Terminus stated at one point that the days of nuclear shore bombardments were over.

My question is...can you tell us what went wrong in the code that causes the nukes in the stock game?

Thanks,

[Terminus]

Nope. I'm not a code guy...[;)]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Knavey

Question for Terminus (or another one of the AE team)...

I have been reading up on the changes and Terminus stated at one point that the days of nuclear shore bombardments were over.

My question is...can you tell us what went wrong in the code that causes the nukes in the stock game?

Thanks,

Sure. [;)]

They were ahead of their time and were using depleted uranium shells. Turns out that some of them weren't so 'depleted' after all. [:D]

[Knavey]

Wait a minute...Time...because we are dealing with an isotopic half life here, it is impossible to be "ahead" of their time since the shells are always decaying!  Or maybe they are decaying faster than normal and are actually ahead of themselves!
 
Is that why the second bombardment never does as well as the first?  The shells have decayed a little in between?
 
Nucs...gotta hate them as much as Nukes!  [:D]

[witpqs]

Depleted uranium has decayed. If you use it ahead of time it isn't all decayed yet. It's kind of like drinking sour milk while it's still fresh. Or sinking the Bismark after it was scuttled. Or was that before it was scuttled? I always get those mixed up.

[Knavey]

Oh crap...you just hijacked a perfectly good (although absolutely nonsensical) thread!  Now let the Bismark debate begin!

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Knavey

My question is...can you tell us what went wrong in the code that causes the nukes in the stock game?

Ah, but the question assumes that something went wrong in the code! We cannot know whether that assumption is valid or not, because we do not know what the original design specifications required. Hence the code may be WAD or it may not be WAD. We cannot know.

I am not sure, but I have not specifically heard that this code was changed for AE. Even in stock, with adequate counter-measures, the tactic can be defeated.

[Chad Harrison]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Even in stock, with adequate counter-measures, the tactic can be defeated.

With what, 35,000 mines? [:D]

[bradfordkay]

" With what, 35,000 mines?"

Surface Combat Task Forces

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" With what, 35,000 mines?"

Surface Combat Task Forces

question is: "What do you prefer? Seeing one or two BBs and a couple of CAs badly mauled by an incoming IJN bombardment TF with two BBs first and then see your airfield / port nuked, or only seeing your airfield / port nuked?" [:D]

In my not so limited experience, it all comes down to recon. If the detection level of the base is high enough, you most likely see a nuke, if there was no recon, or not enough, then you will mostly get away without any damage.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

question is: "What do you prefer? Seeing one or two BBs and a couple of CAs badly mauled by an incoming IJN bombardment TF with two BBs first and then see your airfield / port nuked, or only seeing your airfield / port nuked?" [:D]

Since when has a SCTF been mauled by an equal strength Bombardment TF?

[whippleofd]

ORIGINAL: Knavey

Wait a minute...Time...because we are dealing with an isotopic half life here, it is impossible to be "ahead" of their time since the shells are always decaying!  Or maybe they are decaying faster than normal and are actually ahead of themselves!

Is that why the second bombardment never does as well as the first?  The shells have decayed a little in between?

Nucs...gotta hate them as much as Nukes!  [:D]

Especially twidget's. There is something WAY wrong with a guy who manipulates a small plastic object to make rods go up and down. [;)]

Whipple

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Knavey

My question is...can you tell us what went wrong in the code that causes the nukes in the stock game?

Ah, but the question assumes that something went wrong in the code! We cannot know whether that assumption is valid or not, because we do not know what the original design specifications required. Hence the code may be WAD or it may not be WAD. We cannot know.

I am not sure, but I have not specifically heard that this code was changed for AE. Even in stock, with adequate counter-measures, the tactic can be defeated.

Yeah, Joe, but scuttled or sunk? The world wonders.

[Knavey]

Scunked!
 
Well, not quite...she did get the Hood.
 
OK Bad joke.  [:'(]