GA statistical musings

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Regarding the AP/GP distinction - fb.asp?m=3714317

Basicaly, the game decides depending on DL.

In the context of kamikaze missions, GP bombs make the most sense. They have higher effect ratings than AP bombs, and doctrine was for them to go after high-value thin-skinned ships such as CV/CVE/CVL, amphibs and smaller warships. AP bombs therefore are a bad trade, as it's less boom in return for only a marginal increase in usefulness.

FWIW, I am almost certain that the cause of BB's sinking above is due to high sys and fires. I'm suspected that the FLT damage occurs as a result of fire-fighting procedures.

Or the heat from the fires melts the rubber glands that seal all kinds of hull penetrations and the water comes in that way. It is all abstracted - even when the flotation damage is showing as small and the fires are raging in the 90s, the on-screen reports will say the ship experiences "heavy flooding" before it sinks when it really just burned up. Once fires hit 99 the AI pretends the hull seams open up and let in the water!

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Regarding the AP/GP distinction - fb.asp?m=3714317

Basicaly, the game decides depending on DL.

In the context of kamikaze missions, GP bombs make the most sense. They have higher effect ratings than AP bombs, and doctrine was for them to go after high-value thin-skinned ships such as CV/CVE/CVL, amphibs and smaller warships. AP bombs therefore are a bad trade, as it's less boom in return for only a marginal increase in usefulness.

FWIW, I am almost certain that the cause of BB's sinking above is due to high sys and fires. I'm suspected that the FLT damage occurs as a result of fire-fighting procedures.

Your points do not bear up under repeated testing. The Jill/Kate/Peggy T/Betty/Francis/Nell always carry SAP on kamikaze missions. The other torpedo bombers probably do as well. It is not random, not a die roll, but a 100% certain. I wonder if the Emily does as well?

SAP bombs always outperform equivalent Kamikaze carrying GP 100% of the time against both warships and cargo ships.

I agree with damage on BB and sinking.

It may very well be that the SAP carrying bomb kamikazes are a mistake/code not finished/ bug, but it is there, it is measurable, it is meaningful and it is statistically very relevant.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
SAP bombs always outperform equivalent Kamikaze carrying GP 100% of the time against both warships and cargo ships.

This looks strange, cause GP has a bigger effect than equivalent SAP, so one would expect GP performing better against soft targets.
I think I'll test it soon (e.g. by editing Kate double as IJAAF plane)

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
SAP bombs always outperform equivalent Kamikaze carrying GP 100% of the time against both warships and cargo ships.

This looks strange, cause GP has a bigger effect than equivalent SAP, so one would expect GP performing better against soft targets.
I think I'll test it soon (e.g. by editing Kate double as IJAAF plane)

I wasn't really looking for real world justification to coding but rather simple game mechanics.

My guess on the SAP carrying kamikazes is that they trigger many more extra damage messages as in cargo ships because the sys damage is only slightly higher, but there is substantial eng/float/fire damage beyond what a GP bombload kamikaze causes.

I am guessing that any plane capable of carrying a torpedo defaults to the SAP in kamikaze attacks. I haven't tested them all, but the trend is 100% so far.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
SAP bombs always outperform equivalent Kamikaze carrying GP 100% of the time against both warships and cargo ships.

This looks strange, cause GP has a bigger effect than equivalent SAP, so one would expect GP performing better against soft targets.
I think I'll test it soon (e.g. by editing Kate double as IJAAF plane)

I am guessing that any plane capable of carrying a torpedo defaults to the SAP in kamikaze attacks. I haven't tested them all, but the trend is 100% so far.

I would expect all the torp planes to default to SAP then, and it's probably an oversight? I suspect that GP only bombs is WAD, even if it isn't optimum. GP bombs makes the most logical sense, even if it isn't the best move in terms of game mechanics.

IJ already gets far more air-dropped torpedoes that were ever used in the real war, so I won't complain too loudly.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing



I would expect all the torp planes to default to SAP then, and it's probably an oversight? I suspect that GP only bombs is WAD, even if it isn't optimum. GP bombs makes the most logical sense, even if it isn't the best move in terms of game mechanics.

IJ already gets far more air-dropped torpedoes that were ever used in the real war, so I won't complain too loudly.

That is my thinking, an oversight because Alfred never really makes mistakes. I have had a few developers drop into my AARs every now and then and remark that a lot of the end game content was never really tested...Japanese coastal gun forts for example comes to mind right way.

Of course there could be something hidden in the game code we mere peons have no clue about.

Normally, trying to reverse engineer how the code works is very tough given all the variables, but this time it is so consistent, and measurable.

[Barb]

Try considering what kind of bomb/fuse setting was used IRL.
- For all soft skinned and I would also say PRIMARY kamikaze targets - Transports, LSTs, picket DDs, CVEs, CVs - you would probably want GP with rather short fuse setting to get the bomb explode inside the smaller target and inside the hangar for carriers
- For all other targets and I would say SECONDARY kamikaze targets - fire support ships like BBs, CAs, CLs - you would pick up AP or SAP with longer fuse to get the bomb inside before exploding.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
What was the cause of sinking?
Was it due to flt damage associated with bombs penetrating the armour or were they abandoned due to fires?
Also was there the occurrence of the "penetrating hit" message during the replay that was present for one bomb type and no the other?

I did not watch the animations, would take too much time for my liking. Assume either penetrating magazine hit (most probable) or accumulated flotation.
Ships are not abandoned due to fires, but due to accumulated fire system damage. And as you can see system damage was not dangerously high for surviving ships.

If you used Tracker from turn to turn, you could determine what it was by looking at the Ships data set and then looking at the sunk ships, then what their damage level was that reached 100. It would be either Flt or Fire.

System damage never reaches 100. It will max out at 99, at which point it is statistically improbable to the point of "might happen 1 time in 1000" that damage control of Flooding or Fire will be successful. Ships always, always, always, always sink from Flooding = 100 or Fire = 100 in this game.

Fire and System damage just happen to be correlated.

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

And the saga continues.
Today I want to bring your attention to some of the pecularities of HQs and preparation.

TL/DR: Don't leave home without your army/corp HQs - presence is more important than preparation.

The idea was to gain more understanding in what defines adjusted AV. Many things affect it, so I tried to isolate two of the more important and less understood ones - HQ and preparation percentage. Tests have a single Japanese ID attacking a single US regiment in a clear terrain base with forts at level 2. Commanders were edited to have all stats at 60, experience for infantry was set at 50, morale at 99. TOE of ID had 450 infantry squads and 450 support, TOE of US regiment is standard. Attack commensed at the start of scenario, so presumably clear weather all the way. I toggled prep between 0 and 100 both for attackers and defenders, and sometimes added HQs for the attacking side, both army/corp and command ones.

Many of the combinations are yet to be tested, so I want to point out two most important findings (for me)

1. The effect of army/corp HQs is much more important than ~10% to AV which I've seen circulated. HQc have a chance to double the adjusted AV, and all but eliminates leaders(-) penalties, that are usually disasterous (x2 to x4 drops in AV). Command HQ can further double adjusted AV on its own, and the effect is cumulative. With ID+HQc+HQ all at prep 100 I got 1994 adjusted AV once from 450 base. In ~50% attacks AV doubled, while in ~20% quadrupled.

2. Mere presense of the HQc is a big boon (more than x2) to average adjusted AV. Even with prep at zero. See on the picture how adjusted AV of an 100-prep division behaves if 0-prep HQc is added to the hex. With HQc in hex, attacking LCU stops getting leaders(-) almost entirely, while w/o HQ 70% of attacks got this negative modifier which generally halved adjusted AV.


3. Prep itself matters for LCUs, but not as much as HQ presense. Defending regiment with base AV 127 gets average adjusted AV ~50 with prep 0, and ~70 with prep 100. Adjusted AV is still consistently lower than base, but preparation alleviates some of the negative effect

Great find. This HQ effect is far more useful than HQc 10% combat bonus and better healing of damaged squads that are mentioned by the manual and devs. Alas, HQ units are scarce for any combatant nation but China.

[GetAssista]

An illustration of how important China is for training Japanese troops experience. This is one attack where a total of 56 jap squads were destroyed (so no big deal for xp)

[Yaab]

Getting back to your HQ test. In your test you had a single HQ and a single LCU. Since there is only a handful of HQs for each nation, players mostly end up with one HQ and several LCUs in combat hexes. Can one HQ present in a combat hex eliminate leader penalties for several LCUs present in the hex?

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Yaab
Getting back to your HQ test. In your test you had a single HQ and a single LCU. Since there is only a handful of HQs for each nation, players mostly end up with one HQ and several LCUs in combat hexes. Can one HQ present in a combat hex eliminate leader penalties for several LCUs present in the hex?

Yes, I extrapolated. My running assumption was that all the LCUs in the hex act exactly the same with respect to HQ bonus in terms of initial model (particular outcome for each LCU would be a result of the roll and of LCU individual characteristics of course). Seems like a reasonable assumption, I cannot recall any situation in the game where an outside bonus was limited to only some units (forts, terrain, decease etc). HQ bonus should be no different.

Also, prepared HQs are a great help in sieges where there are dozens of units. It is really noticeable. You can regularly see adjusted AV higher than base AV on the final stages of the siege when enemy fire does not disrupt incoming attackers and suppress AV much. Means that bonus is there for many units.

[Yaab]

Is there any way you could set up the folloiwng test scenario:

-Japan/Allied flying patrol boats (Catalinas, Mavis etc) fly Nav Attack missions with bombs at 100/1000/2000 feet
-some enemy xAKs as targets
-enemy fighters LRCAP the xAKs
-air combat: fighters shoot at the incoming Mavis/Catalinas
-watch all combat animations and see if any combat display sthe following message

"Fighters unable to close due to defensive fire"

I have never seen this message when patrol boats are fending off fighters. They have lots of MGs and sometimes even cannons, but they never shoot at fighters like 2E and 4E bombers do.

[Yaab]

Once again the HQ test.

GetAssista, did the HQ themselves take part in combat? Were they placed in Combat mode or Reserve mode?

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Yaab
GetAssista, did the HQ themselves take part in combat? Were they placed in Combat mode or Reserve mode?

Combat mode everyone always. I was not interested in testing other modes anyway, was looking on the basic question and setup that is the most relevant for what players encounter in the game

AFAIR HQs don't take part in combat in the way you seem to imply. They will not attack themselves, nor will they take losses from the assault phases. They will suffer from bombardments and other ranged warfare though