I have to go to work but will rerun test tonight. I'll have results posted by 9 or 10 PM central. A few key points to think about:
Supply stored at unit level is immune to bombing. This may be one sourse of confusion. When I say 5 to 15 percent I am talking about base supply. Once base supply is zero bombing will not reduce the supplies held at unit level.
Unit level supply must be tracked as supplies move back and forth between base supply and unit supply confusing the results of tests. Also replacements must be turned off or the results will be further confused. Were you adding in unit supplies to your results?
I am bombing with B-17's. Is it possible that different bombs cause different supply hits?
It's been a while since I did my tests and I'm not sure which patch I was using then. Maybe somthing has changed. I'll be using 1.21 tonight.
10% rule on supply hits
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
Captain Cruft
- Posts: 3752
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: England
RE: Test result
Best test environment would be an self-contained island or atoll with no LCUs or Air Groups on it ...
RE: Test result
Hi, Base supply only. B-29 version 1.21
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: Test result
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.
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.
-
ZOOMIE1980
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am
RE: Test result
Hmmm..... all in all, it seems as though supply loss due to bombing is reasonable given all the factors mentioned above. However, I would think higher fortification levels should result in considerably reduced supply and fuel losses due to bombing. Is fortification level part of the bomb damage forumlas???
RE: Test result
In ten test runs I got an average damage/hit for supply of 123.9 and for fuel 102.3
So that relates to about 1.25% for supply and 1% for fuel.
For supply hits, 41 damage per hit was the lowest and 173 was the highest.
Fuel hits, 0 was the lowest and 213 the highest.
Note that with FoW off I had one port fuel hit that did NO damage. Maybe the dud rate kicks in sometimes?
The port damage was also variable, it varied from about 2 to 8 per hit.
For the grogs, fort level is 5 and terrain is Cm.
More testing later.
So that relates to about 1.25% for supply and 1% for fuel.
For supply hits, 41 damage per hit was the lowest and 173 was the highest.
Fuel hits, 0 was the lowest and 213 the highest.
Note that with FoW off I had one port fuel hit that did NO damage. Maybe the dud rate kicks in sometimes?
The port damage was also variable, it varied from about 2 to 8 per hit.
For the grogs, fort level is 5 and terrain is Cm.
More testing later.
RE: Test result
Hi, Also I don't think WITP uses anything different from UV. In UV hits also do approx 1 percent damage per hit.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: Test result
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. [;)]
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. [;)]
RE: Test result
This is driving me nuts!! I have to get home to do a test. Maybe I can pretend to be sick.
Possibly my results were skewed by the effects of airfield repair and/or disruption recovery of the units. I was getting much higher supply losses bombing Tulagi. I wonder if port/airfield size has an effect.
In any event now I have somthing to do while waiting for a patch.[:)]
Possibly my results were skewed by the effects of airfield repair and/or disruption recovery of the units. I was getting much higher supply losses bombing Tulagi. I wonder if port/airfield size has an effect.
In any event now I have somthing to do while waiting for a patch.[:)]
RE: Test result
For me, those results are a little disappointing. Fortification, rather than base size, should have the greatest impact on supply losses imo. It seems like base size has an effect, but fortification has none. Not a lot of data to draw that conclusion on though, so there is hope.
"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."
RE: Test result
ORIGINAL: Oznoyng
For me, those results are a little disappointing. Fortification, rather than base size, should have the greatest impact on supply losses imo. It seems like base size has an effect, but fortification has none. Not a lot of data to draw that conclusion on though, so there is hope.
Base size = proper storage facilities
Fortification size = places for troops to defend from
RE: Test result
I guess. To me, fortifications imply "preparation of base to repel/resist attacks." Many of those preparations are in the form of foxholes, bunkers, pillboxes, sandbag walls, etc. Another part of it for me is hardening of supply depots, dispersal of supplies to defensive positions, etc. that should make destroying supplies harder.ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
ORIGINAL: Oznoyng
For me, those results are a little disappointing. Fortification, rather than base size, should have the greatest impact on supply losses imo. It seems like base size has an effect, but fortification has none. Not a lot of data to draw that conclusion on though, so there is hope.
Base size = proper storage facilities
Fortification size = places for troops to defend from
"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."
RE: Test result
A modify by fortification level would be nice, I recall suggesting it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when but if the nominal supply damage is around the 1-3% mark anyway i dont see it as a game breaker....especially as "supply hits" in terms of probability have been reduced from UV days.
RE: Test result
More numbers. Fort levels set for 0, only changed port level( changed airfield to 9 to avoid spoilage)
port 1 47 fuel hits for 136 damage per hit, 49 supply hits for 143 damage per hit
port 3 35 fuel hits for 147 damage per hit, 56 supply hits for 93 damage per hit ( previous test )
port 7 24 fuel hits for 84 damage per hit, 37 supply hits for 70 damage per hit.
Fuel hits have some very big variations, supply has smaller variations. For these the smallest fuel hit was 0 and
the largest was 377. for supply, smallest was 42 and the largest was 294.
Certainly damage per hit goes down as the port size goes up and that using a 1% number would be as close
as you can get in a game. You might raise it a bit if the port is less than 4 and lower it some if the port is
larger than 4. There still is some dud rate figured in, one run had 2 port fuel hits with NO damage!
This concludes this series of tests. [:D]
port 1 47 fuel hits for 136 damage per hit, 49 supply hits for 143 damage per hit
port 3 35 fuel hits for 147 damage per hit, 56 supply hits for 93 damage per hit ( previous test )
port 7 24 fuel hits for 84 damage per hit, 37 supply hits for 70 damage per hit.
Fuel hits have some very big variations, supply has smaller variations. For these the smallest fuel hit was 0 and
the largest was 377. for supply, smallest was 42 and the largest was 294.
Certainly damage per hit goes down as the port size goes up and that using a 1% number would be as close
as you can get in a game. You might raise it a bit if the port is less than 4 and lower it some if the port is
larger than 4. There still is some dud rate figured in, one run had 2 port fuel hits with NO damage!
This concludes this series of tests. [:D]
RE: Test result
Ok I was definatly off base on this one. My apologies for spreading misinformation but it was an honest error.
I used nomad's methodology and put 100,000 supply and fuel in french frigate shools. I changed the base to 6 port and 6 airbase with no fortifications. No air, land or sea units were present. I then bombed the port using B24D's from PH. I was playing head to head with FOW off.
So far I have inflicted 24 supply hits which have caused the loss of 1612 supply points for an average of 67 per supply hits. So 24 supply hits have reduced this bases supply by only 1.612 %!!! I saw no reason to continue the test since clearly my original conjecture was false.
From my data and Nomads more extensive work I'm wondering if supply hits cause a percentage loss at all. It appears to be more of a set loss per hit.
The number of supply hits no longer even seem important to me. It appears that a much greater supply loss occurs through airbase/port repair and possibly LCU recovery.
I used nomad's methodology and put 100,000 supply and fuel in french frigate shools. I changed the base to 6 port and 6 airbase with no fortifications. No air, land or sea units were present. I then bombed the port using B24D's from PH. I was playing head to head with FOW off.
So far I have inflicted 24 supply hits which have caused the loss of 1612 supply points for an average of 67 per supply hits. So 24 supply hits have reduced this bases supply by only 1.612 %!!! I saw no reason to continue the test since clearly my original conjecture was false.
From my data and Nomads more extensive work I'm wondering if supply hits cause a percentage loss at all. It appears to be more of a set loss per hit.
The number of supply hits no longer even seem important to me. It appears that a much greater supply loss occurs through airbase/port repair and possibly LCU recovery.
RE: Test result
Hi, The importance of supply hits is not something you get from 1 mission. To effect enemy supply at a base you first need to prevent the base receiving further supply (isolate it) and then conduct a long term anti supply campaign. If a base only requires 400 supply per month and starts with 10k supply you need to bomb it. Even at 1 percent per hit you can knock it down in a month or so.
LCU that are out of supply only fight at 25 percent their rating. This is very important to the troops in the first assault wave. Without supply airgroups cannot fly.
You just don't knock it out at the rate some have supposed. I still fly missions where my main target is the enemy supply.
LCU that are out of supply only fight at 25 percent their rating. This is very important to the troops in the first assault wave. Without supply airgroups cannot fly.
You just don't knock it out at the rate some have supposed. I still fly missions where my main target is the enemy supply.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!