Question on Supply Hits

[Q-Ball]

In my AAR vs. Dan, I am bombing Bataan and/or Clark continuously, part of an effort to burn up the supply there. The big thing I am after are "Supply Hits"; I understand that when you get those, part of the other guy's beans and bullets go up in smoke.

Here's the thing: When I bomb Bataan, I get way more supply hits than when I bomb Clark. Same altitude, same bombers. I have been doing this for months and keep switching, and every time, more supply hits at Bataan than Clark.

What is the reason? Smaller airfield?

[Mynok]

Terrain?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

In my AAR vs. Dan, I am bombing Bataan and/or Clark continuously, part of an effort to burn up the supply there. The big thing I am after are "Supply Hits"; I understand that when you get those, part of the other guy's beans and bullets go up in smoke.

Here's the thing: When I bomb Bataan, I get way more supply hits than when I bomb Clark. Same altitude, same bombers. I have been doing this for months and keep switching, and every time, more supply hits at Bataan than Clark.

What is the reason? Smaller airfield?

That's my guess.

[witpqs]

Maybe fortification level difference, too.

[USSAmerica]

More supply there?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

In my AAR vs. Dan, I am bombing Bataan and/or Clark continuously, part of an effort to burn up the supply there. The big thing I am after are "Supply Hits"; I understand that when you get those, part of the other guy's beans and bullets go up in smoke.

Here's the thing: When I bomb Bataan, I get way more supply hits than when I bomb Clark. Same altitude, same bombers. I have been doing this for months and keep switching, and every time, more supply hits at Bataan than Clark.

What is the reason? Smaller airfield?

My understanding, going back to WITP, was a "hit" is 1% of whatever is there and was destroyed. So, small pile, same bombs, more hits because a greater percentage of the starting pile is gone. Same bombs, few hits on a big pile might be more actual destroyed supply.

I think this is the same logic for both airfield and port supply hits.

[aprezto]

I'm leaning in the direction of terrain and forts; certainly this seems to be the case with naval bombardments. A well fortified forest/jungle hex seems to not suffer at all, and even less if there is a CD unit defending the place... but this is a tangential observation.

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

In my AAR vs. Dan, I am bombing Bataan and/or Clark continuously, part of an effort to burn up the supply there. The big thing I am after are "Supply Hits"; I understand that when you get those, part of the other guy's beans and bullets go up in smoke.

Here's the thing: When I bomb Bataan, I get way more supply hits than when I bomb Clark. Same altitude, same bombers. I have been doing this for months and keep switching, and every time, more supply hits at Bataan than Clark.

What is the reason? Smaller airfield?

My understanding, going back to WITP, was a "hit" is 1% of whatever is there and was destroyed. So, small pile, same bombs, more hits because a greater percentage of the starting pile is gone. Same bombs, few hits on a big pile might be more actual destroyed supply.

I think this is the same logic for both airfield and port supply hits.

Bullwinkle is one the money here me thinks as well as fortifications and terrain modifiers playing a role. One thing to also remember (if the mechanics are the same as witp) is that multiple strikes will multiply that 1% higher and higher; resulting in more damage.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: aprezto

I'm leaning in the direction of terrain and forts; certainly this seems to be the case with naval bombardments. A well fortified forest/jungle hex seems to not suffer at all, and even less if there is a CD unit defending the place... but this is a tangential observation.

A rather devilish post, Wobbly. [;)]

[Nomad]

When I tested supply hits for WitP a long time ago, fort level had no effect. But, airfield and port size made a lot of difference.

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

In my AAR vs. Dan, I am bombing Bataan and/or Clark continuously, part of an effort to burn up the supply there. The big thing I am after are "Supply Hits"; I understand that when you get those, part of the other guy's beans and bullets go up in smoke.

Here's the thing: When I bomb Bataan, I get way more supply hits than when I bomb Clark. Same altitude, same bombers. I have been doing this for months and keep switching, and every time, more supply hits at Bataan than Clark.

What is the reason? Smaller airfield?

My understanding, going back to WITP, was a "hit" is 1% of whatever is there and was destroyed. So, small pile, same bombs, more hits because a greater percentage of the starting pile is gone. Same bombs, few hits on a big pile might be more actual destroyed supply.

I think this is the same logic for both airfield and port supply hits.

Bullwinkle is one the money here me thinks as well as fortifications and terrain modifiers playing a role. One thing to also remember (if the mechanics are the same as witp) is that multiple strikes will multiply that 1% higher and higher; resulting in more damage.

I'm sure I read from michaelm, or one of the other developers that AE is not a flat 1% per hit, but the effect does depend on the size of the bomb/shell.

Of course, this is not a factor in the number of hits. [;)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: USS America

I'm sure I read from michaelm, or one of the other developers that AE is not a flat 1% per hit, but the effect does depend on the size of the bomb/shell.

Of course, this is not a factor in the number of hits. [;)]

I don't recall the discussion of AE and not-1%, but I trust your recollection.

What I'm saying is that a "hit" is not a number of physical strikes, explosions, explosions on a storehouse, etc. It's a damage quantity/percentage of some size. Thus, it is a TERRIBLE choice of words made by the original designers. It makes a player think "I dropped 100 bombs, and one scored a hit on something besides dirt." In reality, as I understand it from long past threads, what it really means is "I dropped 100 bombs, and the enemy took a hit to his supplies equal to 1% (or 2%, or 7%) of the supply dump that existed before the raid."

Used in that sense it might, or might not, mean something in the vernacular to a native-speaking American, but maybe not to a more formal English speaker. Regardless, it's a cumbersome way to say something pretty simple, and a departure from the quantitative specificity found in most areas of combat result printouts.

[Q-Ball]

Thanks for replies, that makes sense, and this is good to know for Japanese players besieging Luzon, which is a pretty standard application.

Bataan it is, then.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: n01487477

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




My understanding, going back to WITP, was a "hit" is 1% of whatever is there and was destroyed. So, small pile, same bombs, more hits because a greater percentage of the starting pile is gone. Same bombs, few hits on a big pile might be more actual destroyed supply.

I think this is the same logic for both airfield and port supply hits.

Bullwinkle is one the money here me thinks as well as fortifications and terrain modifiers playing a role. One thing to also remember (if the mechanics are the same as witp) is that multiple strikes will multiply that 1% higher and higher; resulting in more damage.

I'm sure I read from michaelm, or one of the other developers that AE is not a flat 1% per hit, but the effect does depend on the size of the bomb/shell.

Of course, this is not a factor in the number of hits. [;)]

I recall that the hit was a hit, but the weapon effect was influencing when hit was achieved. For example, 250kg GP bomb would be more likely to achieve hit than 60kg GP bomb, former having higher effect. But I am not sure if this was also the case with supply hits.

[PaxMondo]

Wow.  I've wondered about this and hadn't seen any really strong correlations in playing.  Appreciate the insight here.  Will definitely help my playing.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

When I tested supply hits for WitP a long time ago, fort level had no effect. But, airfield and port size made a lot of difference.

Large airfield/port making more or less supply loss for a bomb hit?

[erstad]

I have a recollection that the AE amount is no longer percentage based like it was in Witp/classic, but whether I saw something authoritative or am just imagining this, I can't say.

[Nomad]

Everyone please note this:

It was never a percentage destruction. My testing showed that there was a lot of variation but that 1% was close for a port or airfield of size 4. Larger sizes reduced both the number of hits and the damage done. Smaller sizes showed more hits and more damage per hit. At no time was there any absolute number, either percentage or damage, associated to a single hit.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: erstad

I have a recollection that the AE amount is no longer percentage based like it was in Witp/classic, but whether I saw something authoritative or am just imagining this, I can't say.

quote:

27. Gameplay Change: Changed supply loss due to AF/Port hits to be relative to the
effectiveness of the device hitting the base.

This will change how much supply gets wiped out.
The original method was a fixed amount (+ some random value) per device hit.


_____________________________

Michael


Basically, the bigger the bomb, the more supply destroyed. In reverse, small bomb, less supply.
I have based it on the device's anti-soft value as the key factor.

_____________________________

Michael


quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Basically, the bigger the bomb, the more supply destroyed. In reverse, small bomb, less supply.
I have based it on the device's anti-soft value as the key factor.



So basically nothing changes?


The original code treated all supply hits as if they were by the equivalent of 250lb GP bombs based on the new calculations.
So smaller bombs will do less damage, and bigger ones more.
_____________________________

Michael


quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

My only problem with the idea of "Bigger the bomb, more supplies destroyed" is fact we can't load out 2E's or 4E's with a specific bombload, if this is the case,
why can't my B-24's fly with 4x 2,000lb bombs or 8x1000's rather then typical load of 8x500's?

Well if the plane carries less bombs, then there is less chance of actually hitting something in order to make a bigger crater.
_____________________________

Michael


Yes, fort and terrain affect both port and af supply hits.
_____________________________

Michael


tm.asp?m=2523224&mpage=1&key=supply&#

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Everyone please note this:

It was never a percentage destruction. My testing showed that there was a lot of variation but that 1% was close for a port or airfield of size 4. Larger sizes reduced both the number of hits and the damage done. Smaller sizes showed more hits and more damage per hit. At no time was there any absolute number, either percentage or damage, associated to a single hit.

tm.asp?m=1346848&mpage=1&key=supply%2Chits?

I realize you say you did research about three years before this thread, but it at least shows where the 1% "knowledge" of WITP came from. That was teh rule of thumb for years with that game. The thread I posed just now from the devs shows that the algorithm has changed significantly.

EDIT** EDIT ** EDIT

All please see tm.asp?m=715011&mpage=1&key=supply%2Chi ... 30;�

This ancient, 2004 thread is where Nomad reports his testing, in an exchange with Mogami, then a moderator. Mogami, who may or may not have had access to the code (I don't know) reported the rate as 1%, as in UV, or very close. Nomads' testing showed significant variation. However, the test regime appears to have been variable, especially in the numbers of bombers flown per trial(near the bottom of the thread.)

It might not have been 1%, but that number wasn't made-up, or mis-remembered. To my knowledge the actual algorithm has never been posted (big surprise[:)]), but the point I was making, way back north, is still that a "hit" isn't a bomb hit, but a percent of supply damage.