Do port attacks destroy fuel?

[CarnageINC]

I've been wondering about this issue, shouldn't aerial port attacks destroy fuel at that location? Most ports of the time had fuel tank farms, wouldn't these be a target in real life? If its not part of the game should it be included in any patches? What about surface bombardment, does this destroy fuel? These I would assume would be way less effective but could manage a luck hit or two.

[lazydawg]

Yes port attacks will hit fuel. Listed below is a sample combat report from a recent turn in my game:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Suva , at 132,160

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 160 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 60 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 36
B5N1 Kate x 7
B5N2 Kate x 23
D3A1 Val x 28



Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 39
P-40E Warhawk x 16


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 5 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed, 9 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
AKE Cynthia Olson, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
AG Spica, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage


Allied ground losses:
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)


Airbase hits 1
Port hits 4
Port fuel hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x D3A1 Val bombing from 3000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
9 x D3A1 Val bombing from 4000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
3 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 4000 feet
Port Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
7 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 20000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val bombing from 5000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 5000 feet
Port Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
15 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 3000 feet
Port Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
6 x D3A1 Val bombing from 3000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb

[CarnageINC]

Well....how the bloody hell did I over look that?!?!  How much fuel was destroyed by 1 hit?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

Well....how the bloody hell did I over look that?!?!  How much fuel was destroyed by 1 hit?

I may be wrong, but since WITP I think those numbers reprsent the destroyed percentage of what's there. So, 1%. This is a useful number over time, but doesn't tell you if 1000 was destroyed, or 10,000. It depends on the size of the stockpile.

[Milman]

If i remember corectly in witp every hit is 1%. But this is how game calculate :

Base have 1000 Fuel.

First hit -1% = 990 fuel (1% of 1000 = 10)
second hit -1% = 980,1 fuel (1% of 990 = 9,90)
third hit -1% = 970, 3 fuel (1% of 980,1 = 9,80)

....

So it means 3 hits is not 3% but 2,97%. I never checked these info just read it in witp forum few years ago.

[Cap Mandrake]

Absolutely port hits destroy fuel.

Based on the damage done to Sydney fuel stocks in our game, I suspect the 1% rule quoted is too low.

We lost over half the fuel stocks with much fewer than 10 fuel hits (my guess is less than 5)

[CarnageINC]

Well, I guess your never too old to learn new things in WitP, lord knows there is a lot to this monster.  Thanks for the intel gentlemen [;)]

[foliveti]

I don't think that a hit represents 1%, it means a hit in the fuel dump.  Similarly with supply hits.  I think the losses are random to some extent and might vary based on the size of the base and the amount of fuel or supplies at the base.

[pompack]

Each hit represents 1% of the fuel stock. The loss is applied in a singe step at the end of the combat, so 3 hits on a port with 1000 fuel will destroy 30 fuel. Obviously a second attack, even on the same turn, with three hits would only destroy 29 fuel since the stock at the time of the attack was do2n to 970.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Milman

If i remember corectly in witp every hit is 1%. But this is how game calculate :

Base have 1000 Fuel.

First hit -1% = 990 fuel (1% of 1000 = 10)
second hit -1% = 980,1 fuel (1% of 990 = 9,90)
third hit -1% = 970, 3 fuel (1% of 980,1 = 9,80)

....

So it means 3 hits is not 3% but 2,97%. I never checked these info just read it in witp forum few years ago.

I didn't know it micro-looped like that. If it does that's a LOT of math.[:)]
Next, the really anally-retentive fanboys will want to know if it rounds the final total up or down when it divides against the starting stockpile..

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: pompack

Each hit represents 1% of the fuel stock. The loss is applied in a singe step at the end of the combat, so 3 hits on a port with 1000 fuel will destroy 30 fuel. Obviously a second attack, even on the same turn, with three hits would only destroy 29 fuel since the stock at the time of the attack was do2n to 970.

I'd always understand it did it this way as well. There's not a lot of utility in doing a bomb-by-bomb calculation.

[CarnageINC]

Supplies must work in the same manner as fuel losses?  All good info, thanks gentlemen for posting [;)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

Supplies must work in the same manner as fuel losses?  All good info, thanks gentlemen for posting [;)]

I have always understood that supply loss reports are also percentages of the total before the attack.

However, runway hits are actual hits ("holes") in the runway. I don't know if there is a straight correlation between runway size, number of hits, and % out-of-commission, but I assume there is. 100 RL hits on an Airfield 1 is a lot worse for ops than 100 on an Airfield 5.

Port hits themselves (not Port fuel or Port supply) I also think are actual # of bomb strikes on port structures like piers and cranes, and correlate to Port damage on the base hex screen.

I also think, but don't know, that guns reported destroyed or disabled in Port stats after a Port attack are CD guns, not organic artillery guns. Port attacks are the only way to decrease CD levels with aircraft.

If all of this is in the manual I'll feel pretty stupid.

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

Supplies must work in the same manner as fuel losses?  All good info, thanks gentlemen for posting [;)]

I have always understood that supply loss reports are also percentages of the total before the attack.

However, runway hits are actual hits ("holes") in the runway. I don't know if there is a straight correlation between runway size, number of hits, and % out-of-commission, but I assume there is. 100 RL hits on an Airfield 1 is a lot worse for ops than 100 on an Airfield 5.

Port hits themselves (not Port fuel or Port supply) I also think are actual # of bomb strikes on port structures like piers and cranes, and correlate to Port damage on the base hex screen.

I also think, but don't know, that guns reported destroyed or disabled in Port stats after a Port attack are CD guns, not organic artillery guns. Port attacks are the only way to decrease CD levels with aircraft.

If all of this is in the manual I'll feel pretty stupid.

All of this was correct in WitP, so should be the same in AE unless a developer contradicts it.

That last point becomes important for the Allies when preparing for invasions. [;)]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



... runway hits are actual hits ("holes") in the runway. I don't know if there is a straight correlation between runway size, number of hits, and % out-of-commission, but I assume there is. 100 RL hits on an Airfield 1 is a lot worse for ops than 100 on an Airfield 5.

...If all of this is in the manual I'll feel pretty stupid.

Yep Bullwinkle, you just pulled that Lion out of the hat instead of the rabbit[:D]

Have a look at page 214, section 9.4.1 of the manual for the formula which outlines the effect of airfield damage on operations. To summarise, Cap/Patrol and Strike missions, respectively are prevented when runway damage reaches the following levels per airbase size:

Airfield Cap Strike

1 55 25
2 60 30
3 65 35
4 70 40
5 75 45
6 80 50
7 85 55
8 90 60
9 95 65

This means that 60 hits will prevent:

(a) Cap/Patrol or Strike missions on all airbases sized 1 or 2,
(b) Strike missions on airbases sized 8 and below but Cap/Patrol missions would still be able to be flown out of bases sized 3+

Of course these are raw figures and don't take into account how rapidly repairs can be made before the next turn.

Alfred

PS - no criticism meant, just harking back to a recent exchange between us regarding the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show[:)]

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



... runway hits are actual hits ("holes") in the runway. I don't know if there is a straight correlation between runway size, number of hits, and % out-of-commission, but I assume there is. 100 RL hits on an Airfield 1 is a lot worse for ops than 100 on an Airfield 5.

...If all of this is in the manual I'll feel pretty stupid.

Yep Bullwinkle, you just pulled that Lion out of the hat instead of the rabbit[:D]

Have a look at page 214, section 9.4.1 of the manual for the formula which outlines the effect of airfield damage on operations. To summarise, Cap/Patrol and Strike missions, respectively are prevented when runway damage reaches the following levels per airbase size:

Airfield Cap Strike

1 55 25
2 60 30
3 65 35
4 70 40
5 75 45
6 80 50
7 85 55
8 90 60
9 95 65

This means that 60 hits will prevent:

(a) Cap/Patrol or Strike missions on all airbases sized 1 or 2,
(b) Strike missions on airbases sized 8 and below but Cap/Patrol missions would still be able to be flown out of bases sized 3+

Of course these are raw figures and don't take into account how rapidly repairs can be made before the next turn.

Alfred

PS - no criticism meant, just harking back to a recent exchange between us regarding the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show[:)]

Thanks Alfred!

One of these days I need to re-read the manual to find all the things I missed the first time[:)] Since the early days of WitP all I have done was to search for whatever point was perplexing me at the time.

[Nomad]

A note, I am the one who did extensive testing on the supply destruction in witP a very long time ago. the destruction was NOT exactly 1% but it was close. Also, I only did a limited about of testing, so take the 1% with a bit of skepticism. further, in witP fortification level had no effect but port or airfield size did.

Here is what I wrote in 2008( I am still looking for the 2004 posting )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few comments are in order on the testing I did in 2004 and later(not posted):

1. Fortifications have NO effect on supply destruction.

2. The base/port size is very much a factor. The 1% was an average amount of destruction for a
level 5 base/port. A level 1 suffered much higher destruction and leve 9 suffered much less destruction.

3. There were huge variations in destruction per hit. Again, the 1% was an average for an average
sized base/port.

4. This was a limited set of tests to get a handle on the approximate supply destruction, not any
kind of definitive testing. All tests were made with the base having 10,000 supply - a different amount
of starting supply may increase or decrease the rate of destruction. I did not test to see if smaller or
larger bombs made any difference. I did not test to see if an HQ with different leader stats made any
difference. All test were made with no Flak, and I have no idea if that would make a difference in the
rate of destruction or if it would only affect the probability of hits. Also note that there is no confirmation
that the supply destruction is some percentage function.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original 2004 test and posts

I modified the turorial senario to the following:

No air or ground units on Saipan. Saipan with 10,000 supply and 10,000 fuel.

I then flew the B-29s on Port attack. The results are very varried. I got from 41 to 148 supplies or fuel
destroyed per port supply hit or port fuel hit.

Looking at only supplies, the three runs I made were:

6 hits for 886 destroyed = 148 per hit
4 hits for 391 destroyed = 98 per hit
2 hits for 248 destroyed = 124 per hit

Not enough data to be completly accrute but it looks like at Saipan 1.25% is about right.

I'll try a few more and then change the fort level to see what difference that makes.
--- more
Here are some more numbers. Read into them what you want. All tests are as above with only the fortification level
changing.

fort level 0 35 fuel hits for 146 damage per hit, 56 supply hits for 93 damage per hit

fort level 5 35 fuel hits for 102 damage per hit, 39 supply hits for 124 damage per hit

fort level 9 35 fuel hits for 152 damage per hit, 51 supply hits for 103 damage per hit.

I used only 10 runs per fort level.

Note that I threw out 3 results that had no supply or fuel hits with no damage.
Note that in one run there were no port hits but the port had 9 damage.
Seems odd that in all three test runs there were 35 fuel hits but I rechecked and that is what it is.
I did not keep track of how many bombers flew, I remember numbers ranging from 39 to 72 or so.
Again I had three cases of 1 hit on fuel resulting in 0 damage.
Even though the editor shows a dud rate of 0, I see evidence of some kind of dud rate.
It would appear that fort level plays no part, but more test runs would have to done.
My guess is that damage is about 1.25% per hit with a load of modifiers.

[foliveti]

Yep Bullwinkle, you just pulled that Lion out of the hat instead of the rabbit

Have a look at page 214, section 9.4.1 of the manual for the formula which outlines the effect of airfield damage on operations. To summarise, Cap/Patrol and Strike missions, respectively are prevented when runway damage reaches the following levels per airbase size:

Airfield Cap Strike

1 55 25
2 60 30
3 65 35
4 70 40
5 75 45
6 80 50
7 85 55
8 90 60
9 95 65

This means that 60 hits will prevent:

(a) Cap/Patrol or Strike missions on all airbases sized 1 or 2,
(b) Strike missions on airbases sized 8 and below but Cap/Patrol missions would still be able to be flown out of bases sized 3+

Of course these are raw figures and don't take into account how rapidly repairs can be made before the next turn.

Alfred

PS - no criticism meant, just harking back to a recent exchange between us regarding the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show

I believe the above description of damage effects relates to the percentage damage not the number of hits. I am not sure what percentage damage is obtained per hit and whether it is uniform or random.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

A note, I am the one who did extensive testing on the supply destruction in witP a very long time ago. the destruction was NOT exactly 1% but it was close.

I suspect, like many things in WITP/AE, that 1% is the baseline and sometimes gets modified by various factors.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Alfred


Yep Bullwinkle, you just pulled that Lion out of the hat instead of the rabbit[:D]

Have a look at page 214, section 9.4.1 of the manual for the formula which outlines the effect of airfield damage on operations. To summarise, Cap/Patrol and Strike missions, respectively are prevented when runway damage reaches the following levels per airbase size:


PS - no criticism meant, just harking back to a recent exchange between us regarding the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show[:)]

No, I have that lion visual in my head now. Probably will all day.[:)]
I'm proudly wearing my No Manuals T-shirt as I type.
I DID read the whole thing--eventually--but it was pre-Christmas, and I am a very, very old man.[8|]
That's my story and I'm sticking to it . . .