Err, I was wondering something that your test perhaps could show:
Is the number of actual ships at the port alter the number of hits on ships...
Seems pretty obvious but the trick is = are they miss converted to hit on ship or port/supply hit converted to ship hit ?
In the first case then we have a problem as this means that each bomb is tested TWICE to see if it hit or not, and that probably make large bomb carrier that much more efficient...
If the Hit on port/installation keep in number but we have more and more ships hits then perhaps ... I dont know. Some testing really needed there I feel.
This is one of the things that I asked Apollo to do in these tests he keeps blowing off. (Just yanking your chain, Apollo. [:D]) We have B-29 runs with and without ships but the percentages are too low to draw any firm conclusions (random chance playing too large a role, need either higher hit %s or lots more B-29 runs). So I've asked him to do the same with smaller bombers that have higher hit %s.
This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.
Well I will probably tell something stupid but what about applying some quick big number test to avoid having to run several test:
First try a 10.000 bombers each with 1 bomb then 1 bomber with 10.000 bombs. 5 runs of each and you will have pretty confirmation if the hitting is by bombers or by bombs. If it is by bomb then you can train by having modifier bombers with 1.000 bombs...
Multiplying the bomb launched by test will have the same effect than multiplying the test, statistically, no ?
Go take a look at the statistics and analysis I posted about a week (?) ago. Since some of the hit percentages when figured by hits/aircraft exceed 100%, it seems likely that the calculations are per bomb. But we can never tell for certain by testing, only someone with access to the source code can say. (It could be that the program checks by aircraft with a possibility of multiple hits based on aircraft type or payload. That's not strickly "by plane" or "by bomb". It is impossible for us to say.)
This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.
As promised here are test results against against port only when B-29's are substituted by B-17E's - everything else is same as in previous tests (see below for more details and cross-check with similar test in past)!
IMPORTANT NOTE:
In order to achieve this I just changed aircraft type used by bomber groups from B-29 to B-17E. This way all pilots are same and leaders are also the same. I also changed B-17E endurance to match the endurance of B-29 (without this they would lack range).
Description:
I created brand new custom scenario for this testing.
There are only 3 islands present: Marcus Island, Wake Island and Midway. Marcus Island is IJN base while Midway is USN base. For this test Wake Island is made Japanese base with both Port and Airbase (and SPS) of 6.
There is nothing (no LCU's and aircraft) at Wake Island and no ships in port.
Weather is always clear.
FoW is OFF.
Two B-17E's groups have their default leaders (50's/60's ratings) while their EXP and morale is set to 70.
The B-17E's have to fly 14 HEXes from Midway to Wake Island.
The B-17E's attack from 10000ft.
5 consecutive runs of scenario in day (i.e. daytime bombings):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63
Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 86
No Allied losses
Port hits 12
Port fuel hits 3
Port supply hits 3
Aircraft Attacking:
48 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
20 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
15 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63
Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 96
No Allied losses
Port hits 9
Port fuel hits 4
Port supply hits 5
Aircraft Attacking:
36 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
27 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
11 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
7 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63
Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 75
No Allied losses
Port hits 7
Port fuel hits 4
Port supply hits 8
Aircraft Attacking:
36 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
20 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
7 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63
Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 86
No Allied losses
Port hits 6
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 3
Aircraft Attacking:
20 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
36 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
15 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 10000 feet
At first glance it is obvious to note that there is drop in hits from B-17E's compared to B-29's. Since the number of used planes was same and for both planes the range to target was in "Normal" range the only apparent difference was the number of bombs carried. The B-29 on "Normal" range can carry 40x 500 lb bombs while B-17E can carry 12x 500 lb bombs.
Please note that originally Wake had 50000 supplies and 10000 fuel at start (one can calculate actual loss using number of hits and this info).
As promised here are test results against against port only when B-29's are substituted by B-25C's - everything else is same as in previous tests (see below for more details and cross-check with similar test in past)!
IMPORTANT NOTE:
In order to achieve this I just changed aircraft type used by bomber groups from B-29 to B-25C. This way all pilots are same and leaders are also the same. I also changed B-25C endurance to match the endurance of B-29 (without this they would lack range).
Description:
I created brand new custom scenario for this testing.
There are only 3 islands present: Marcus Island, Wake Island and Midway. Marcus Island is IJN base while Midway is USN base. For this test Wake Island is made Japanese base with both Port and Airbase (and SPS) of 6.
There is nothing (no LCU's and aircraft) at Wake Island and no ships in port.
Weather is always clear.
FoW is OFF.
Two B-25C's groups have their default leaders (50's/60's ratings) while their EXP and morale is set to 70.
The B-25C's have to fly 14 HEXes from Midway to Wake Island.
The B-25C's attack from 10000ft.
5 consecutive runs of scenario in day (i.e. daytime bombings):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63
Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 94
No Allied losses
Port hits 5
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 3
Aircraft Attacking:
18 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
36 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
6 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
22 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
4 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
2 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63
Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 93
No Allied losses
Port hits 12
Port fuel hits 4
Port supply hits 5
Aircraft Attacking:
36 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
27 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
11 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
4 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
8 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
4 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Wake Island , at 82,63
Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 96
No Allied losses
Port hits 7
Port supply hits 4
Aircraft Attacking:
27 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
36 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
6 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
15 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
3 x B-25C Mitchell bombing at 10000 feet
Again at first glance it is obvious to note that there is drop in hits from B-25C's compared to B-17E's and compared to B-29's. Since the number of used planes was same and for all three aircrfat types the range to target was in "Normal" range the only apparent difference was the number of bombs carried. The B-29 on "Normal" range can carry 40x 500 lb bombs, B-17E can carry 12x 500 lb bombs and B-25C can carry 6x 500 lb bombs.
Please note that originally Wake had 50000 supplies and 10000 fuel at start (one can calculate actual loss using number of hits and this info).
Okay, here are the average hit % for all the daylight port bombing test run by Apollo11. Methodology is as described in an earlier post. I am just going to give the average hit % for each of the tests to make it easier to read. The offer to share the Excel spreadsheet used to generate these still stands.
B-29 vs. CV/BB: 1.65%
B-29 vs. AK/AP: 1.30%
B-29 (exp 50) vs. CV/BB: 1.44%
B-29 (exp 50) vs. AK/AP: 1.51%
B-29 (30K alt) vs. CV/BB: 0.28%
B-29 (30K alt) vs. AK/AP: 0.25%
B-29 vs. AK/AP (w/AAA): 1.86%
B-29 vs. empty port: 0.64%
B-17E vs. CV/BB: 3.31%
B-17E vs. AK/AP: 6.80%
B-17E vs. AK/AP (w/AAA): 6.41%
B-17E vs. empty port: 1.64%
B-25C vs. CV/BB: 9.21%
B-25C vs. AK/AP: 13.29%
B-25C vs. AK/AP (w/AAA): 7.78%
B-25C vs. empty port: 2.16%
Analysis and observations is following post.
This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.
1) Experience seems to have little, if any, effect on accuracy. Perhaps it kicks in at the 80+ or 90+ level, I don't know.
2) Altitude has a great deal of effect.
3) AAA does little to reduce accuracy of the 4-engine bombers, but has a strong effect on 2-engine bombers.
There are also two additional observations which I believe 2by3 needs to look into:
4) Warships are harder to hit than cargo ships. This would seem to indicate that even when they are anchored and docked, the manuverability rating of the ship affects whether it is hit or not. I'm having a little trouble picturing this. (The Akagi sailing around Truk harbor, dodging bombs, towing the dock behind her? [X(])
5) Hit percentages drop significantly when the port is empty. The number of hits drops to anywhere from 1/2 to 1/6 as many. At first impression, this doesn't seem right to me. Too severe a drop off IMHO. Some drop off I can understand, but not this much.
This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.
Ribs are fine but I think it would be wise not to mention food on furums because one survey here showed that most of people here are overweight and holiday season we just had was great opportunity to add few more kilos / pounds... [;)]
4) Warships are harder to hit than cargo ships. This would seem to indicate that even when they are anchored and docked, the manuverability rating of the ship affects whether it is hit or not. I'm having a little trouble picturing this. (The Akagi sailing around Truk harbor, dodging bombs, towing the dock behind her? )
I can see that warships could be harder to hit (how much harder I dont know) just from the AAA diffrences. A CV should be able to put up a lot more flack than a AK and the path of least resistance might find a few more planes drifting to the AK out of self-preservation (maybe this is where moral/exp checks could be a factor).
ORIGINAL: ltfightr
I can see that warships could be harder to hit (how much harder I dont know) just from the AAA diffrences. A CV should be able to put up a lot more flack than a AK and the path of least resistance might find a few more planes drifting to the AK out of self-preservation (maybe this is where moral/exp checks could be a factor).
Other tests indicate that AAA does not affect the accuracy of the four-engine bombers. Compare the results of the tests against AK/APs with and without the additional AAA units. The warships were hit less than the merchants with significantly more AAA than the warships have.
This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.
Your testing shows that the results against ships and land facilities should be reversed. Making it harder to hit shipping and easier to hit facilities. Nice work.
Amended
Credits: Apollo 11
So in an earlier thread players were asked to do some testing on their own. Will any of this pertinent data be evaluated for change? The TF strike co-ordination rule also comes to mind.
Your testing shows that the results against ships and land facilities should be reversed. Making it harder to hit shipping and easier to hit facilities. Nice work.
Apollo did the heavy lifting for this, setting up and running the actual tests. I just organized the numbers he generated.
This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.
