Page 2 of 2

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:43 pm
by Mac Linehan
ORIGINAL: witpqs

This is awesome! Obvert's and Aurorus's comments are also spot on (don't forget Toto! [:D]): it won't provide certainty but it will give a player a better idea of the actual tool they are holding (a group of LCU) at the time. Just look at how often the non-AV fighting characteristics of units get discussed or brought up in answers to questions and you see how meaningful this is.

Absolutely agree with the above. InfiniteMonkey, I encourage you to go for it. I, for one, would
learn much from the data and ratios your utility would make available, and, I suspect, become a
more informed and better player. AE is of such depth that it is still going strong.

Gents- My Respect to you all.

Mac

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:45 pm
by Mac Linehan
inqistor!

Great to see you back on the forums, Sir!

Mac

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:06 pm
by InfiniteMonkey
ORIGINAL: inqistor
ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey
I think based upon the above that the process for understanding the impact of individual values for a device is:

1. Does it fire? (Range)
2. If it fires, does it hit? (Accuracy)
3. If it hits, is the target armored? (Arm)
4. If armored, does the round penetrate (Pen vs Arm)
5. If non-armored, Apply Anti-soft rating to check for damaged/destroyed devices
6. If armored, Apply Anti-Armor rating to check for damaged/destroyed devices

For each round fired, accumulate Total effects and deduct from supply.
Yup, sounds right. And I suspect it works exactly like this (except damage is calculated from Effect value) AGAINST SHIPS.

Now, if you take a look at any squad, it have only Anti-Armor, and Anti-Soft values. The rest is ZERO. That would mean, they can't penetrate any armor, so how would they fight against tanks?
I also suspect, that ACCURACY is only used against PLANES (high value for AA guns), and SHIPS (CD guns have much higher ACCURACY, than field guns of same caliber).
And I wonder if Anti-Soft value is used for calculating damage, since when planes attack, 15kg bomb is as good in destroying devices as 500lb bomb.
I suspect you are right with respect to Penetration/Anti_armor. The problem is I really do not know how the values are used because they are either 1) not documented, 2) not well documented, or 3) I have not found where they have been documented.

As far as field guns vs CD guns, someone posted recently (perhaps in the BTS/BTSL redesign thread under scenario forum) about the differences between naval target directors on CD guns and army field guns. I think the Accuracy difference between them may be by design. Having said all that, one of my goals in kicking off this conversation was to refine my understanding of the meaning of those device stats wrt to combat performance. Your response was exactly the kind of info/input I was looking for.

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:08 pm
by InfiniteMonkey
ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Just one question please, shall you be able or are you planning to show the results on the units panel in game somehow?
Unfortunately, no. I do not have access to game code or any way to peak into the running app.

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:09 pm
by rustysi
ORIGINAL: Reg


.



Image

[:D]

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:40 pm
by Dili
Range does not matter for direct land combat at least. I don't know if it matters for artillery bombardment in land combat.

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:02 pm
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: Dili

Range does not matter for direct land combat at least. I don't know if it matters for artillery bombardment in land combat.
It's my understanding that it does but I cannot quote any details. I believe details were posted long ago...

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:26 pm
by InfiniteMonkey
ORIGINAL: Dili

Range does not matter for direct land combat at least. I don't know if it matters for artillery bombardment in land combat.
It does, definitely for bombardment, possibly for assaults as well. The wording seems to imply that the range both increases a chance to fire and potentially gives the unit multiple opportunities to fire. Pg 196 of manual:

When Bombarding or firing defensively at a unit that is Bombarding, only weapons with a range
of at least 3 and an anti-soft rating of at least 5 may fire. Coast defense naval guns and dual
purpose guns with a range less than 15,000 yards may not fire. Not all weapons will fire, but
the longer the range of the weapon the greater the chance of firing.
Note: A unit marching into an enemy occupied hex will have
its Detection Level raised to a point where the enemy can
automatically spot it.
The exact effectiveness of fire combat is determined by:
»» Weapon values
»» Unit leader values
»» Unit disruption
»» Unit fatigue
»» Unit supply level
»» Unit Op Mode
»» Number of times the unit has already fired this combat round
»» Terrain

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:28 pm
by Aurorus
Range makes an enormous difference in bombardment attacks. See my post above about my stalled invasion of Moresby as a result of the allies having 80 25 pounders there that outrange my 75 mm mountain guns. Try a bombardment attack at Bataan as Japan without a large stack of long-range heavy artillery, 150 mm or better (24, 28, and 30 cm guns), and watch what happens. You will have 150 squads disabled and inflict few or no allied casualties.

If you want to bombard an enemy stack that also contains artilley into submission, range is the most important weapon characteristic for artillery. If the enemy stack does not contain artillery, range is not very important.

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:16 am
by Alfred
Read my post, and those of devs, in this thread
 
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3701981&mpage=1&key=counter&#3702172
 
for info on artillery participation.
 
Alfred

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:21 pm
by el cid again
A serious problem with LCU is the inability to block a river from naval units passing.
One can build a coast defense unit - and it SOMETIMES will engage - but the only way
to know it is to observe damage on the passing ships (or their reported loss in reports).
It seems no one thought of this function. Yet although rivers were always part of WITP,
if only in very rare locations, and were considerably developed for AE (after primitive
demonstrations by RHS in the original WITP), with fine hexside options, any naval unit
can sail past any land unit with near impunity - no matter what devices are assigned.
Only (rare) coast defense algorithms permit a fight. The chances go up if one adds
detection devices - I call them "spotters" but they are really low grade surface detection
radar - and one can even add effective radar with some (but not very much) effect.

Anyway, just food for thought. Is there a way to change things? One thing I tried was
creation of a "river boom" (see the Sand Pebbles for a find portrayal of one). This is
a weird naval unit armed exclusively with short range army weapons, almost unable to move
(but every naval unit can move one hex per turn by default, even if defined as zero -
which isn't terrible modeling for a river boom moving around). These DO tend to force
a battle with passing naval units - and they do beat them up in visible battles. Or get
sunk. But they are not as effective as a real boom was in stopping the passage of transports.

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 7:00 pm
by crsutton
ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

Okay, so I am working on a concept for the new scenario editor (tm.asp?m=4317059) where I try to do a better job of quantifying the combat strength of an LCU. The idea is to look beyond a mere count of devices and provide some values that look into the device stats that determine their effectiveness in combat: chiefly Range, Accuracy, Effect, Penetration, Anti-Soft, Anti-Armor, Armor, and Ceiling.

My current thinking is that I will provide some "raw" ratings for a unit in terms of 5 situations:

Land Bombardment
Land Attack
Land Defense
Naval Bombardment Counterbattery/Invasion Defense
Air Defense

To go a bit deeper into the above, each LCU might have a summary that looks something like this:
AV: 168 AFV: 6 ENG: 4 NS: 0 Sup: 140 AvS: 0 ShP: 0 McS: 0 G: 16 AA: 0
Bmbd - #:16 Rng: (3/3/3/3/8) Acc: (8/8/8/8/8) A/S: 192 (12/12/12/12/12) A/A: 140 (3/3/3/3/26)
Atk - #:168 A/S: 2088(11/11/11/12/24) A/A: 240(1/1/1/1/5)
Def - #:182 A/S: 2824(5/5/11/12/24) A/A: 416(1/1/1/1/5)
Nav - #: 0
AA - #: 0


(See picture below)

So the Bmbd: line tells you what the statistics are in the Bombardment phase of combat, Reading that line it tells you

- "#:16" tells you that the unit has 16 guns eligible to fire in bombardments
- "Rng: (3/3/3/8/9)" tells you the minimum range of 100%/75%/50%/25%/0% of guns. This has an important impact upon the effectiveness of this unit in bombardment since the longer ranged guns are more likely to fire in combat. Most of those guns are range 3 - and range 3 guns are less likely to fire
- "Acc: (8/8/8/8/8)" tells you the minimum accuracy of 100%/75%/50%/25%/0% of guns. This has an impact upon whether the gun hits it's target IF it fires.
- "A/S: 192 (12/12/12/12/12)" tells you that the combined Anti-Soft rating of all devices that have an opportunity to fire is 192, with ALL devices having an anti-Soft rating of 12.
- "A/A: 140 (3/3/3/3/26)" tells you that the combined Anti-Armor rating of all devices that have an opportunity to fire is 140, with 75% of devices having an anti-Armor rating of 3, but about 25% having an anti-armor rating of 26.

I'm also thinking that the ratings will be most useful if they are considered in relation to another unit/in the context of a battle. With no point of reference, the values above are not particularly useful. However, if I can compare two units on opposite sides of a bombardment duel, I get a clearer picture of potential outcomes:

Unit 1
Bmbd - #:16 Rng: (3/3/3/3/8) Acc: (8/8/8/8/8) A/S: 192 (12/12/12/12/12) A/A: 140 (3/3/3/3/26)

vs.
Unit 2
Bmbd - #:12 Rng: (12/12/12/12/12) Acc: (6/6/6/6/6) A/S: 264 (22/22/22/22/22) A/A: 504 (42/42/42/42/42)

Unit 1 has 12 81 mm mortars and 4 75mm T41 Mtn Guns
versus
Unit 2 with 12 10cm T91 Howitzers.

Unit 2 has a range advantage as well as an effect advantage. Despite slightly lower accuracy, Unit 2 is likely to wipe the floor with Unit 1, despite the appearance of being outmatched if a count of the guns is the only point of comparison.

I intend to make it possible to define an Allied Force and a Japanese Force, then set leaders, HQ bonuses, supply situations, attack types, terrain, fortifications, detection levels, etc. and calculate a guess of the relative power of the stacks and try to project a range of outcomes. Obviously, I don't know the combat routines, but I think I can at least provide a better estimate of relative combat power than Assault Value.

Once completed, I can pretty easily pull that part out and make it available via an Android/iOS app.

I wanted to ask two questions:

1. Is anyone interested in the above?
2. Any thoughts on the kinds of information to include/what kinds of calculations you'd like to see for an LCU?

Image

Truly made my head hurt [;)] Go ahead and do it if you would like but game experience and general knowledge of the combat units in the Pacific and Asia should go a long way towards building up intuitive knowledge in most minds.

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:31 pm
by offenseman
I would love to see something like this. It would be fun to see how a Marine Division stacks up against a IJA Inf Div for instance. When the data is compiled I know a statistical measure that can measure apples to oranges and still have a valid comparison. If you are interested in that PM me and we can discuss it. I am a statistician, I know how boring that is and will not subject the entire thread to that. [:D]

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:02 pm
by BBfanboy
ORIGINAL: offenseman

I would love to see something like this. It would be fun to see how a Marine Division stacks up against a IJA Inf Div for instance. When the data is compiled I know a statistical measure that can measure apples to oranges and still have a valid comparison. If you are interested in that PM me and we can discuss it. I am a statistician, I know how boring that is and will not subject the entire thread to that. [:D]
Does that imply you are a mean person, or just the sum of squares? Does your doctor demand an adequate sample size? Does your hair have a skewed distribution? (Mine does! [:(] )

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 10:11 am
by zuluhour
I can't believe I read this whole thread (and sub threads) to get to male pattern baldness.....[:D]

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:21 pm
by cardas
This would definitely be a good idea. Simply playing the game will give you some intuitive understanding and experience on how things works and that's probably good enough for many of the veterans here. Overall however the interface is pretty horrendous in giving you the information that actually matters in the ground game. While some might be of the opinion that having some mystique behind the mechanics is well and good it does make for a pretty bad initial experience for anyone new to the game.

Would also help with modding as an additional boon. As an aside I do not believe the "Accuracy" data field matters at all for ground combat.

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:44 pm
by Zorch
ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: offenseman

I would love to see something like this. It would be fun to see how a Marine Division stacks up against a IJA Inf Div for instance. When the data is compiled I know a statistical measure that can measure apples to oranges and still have a valid comparison. If you are interested in that PM me and we can discuss it. I am a statistician, I know how boring that is and will not subject the entire thread to that. [:D]
Does that imply you are a mean person, or just the sum of squares? Does your doctor demand an adequate sample size? Does your hair have a skewed distribution? (Mine does! [:(] )
Is a 'sum of LEAST squares' more than standardly deviated?

RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:56 pm
by BBfanboy
ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: offenseman

I would love to see something like this. It would be fun to see how a Marine Division stacks up against a IJA Inf Div for instance. When the data is compiled I know a statistical measure that can measure apples to oranges and still have a valid comparison. If you are interested in that PM me and we can discuss it. I am a statistician, I know how boring that is and will not subject the entire thread to that. [:D]
Does that imply you are a mean person, or just the sum of squares? Does your doctor demand an adequate sample size? Does your hair have a skewed distribution? (Mine does! [:(] )
Is a 'sum of LEAST squares' more than standardly deviated?
We deviants have no standards - all are welcome!


Image