Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

antiaircraft guns efficiency ?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> antiaircraft guns efficiency ? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
antiaircraft guns efficiency ? - 1/20/2008 11:03:04 AM   
boudi

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline
Hello,

I would like to evaluate the antiaircraft guns efficiency as playing China, against the japaneses strategic bombers.

Sorry for my bad english, french is my native language, and it's difficult to write in english about a mathematic sujbect.

Ok let's go now.

First one, the rules :

a) antiaircraft guns (Flak) use fire supression rules as bombardment attacks,
b) Suppression Points inflicted during Bombardment attacks equal the total die roll divided by a number
between one and the Target Unit’s modified Evasion attribute (determined randomly).
c) An undamaged, suppressed unit will be damaged if it’s accumulated Suppression Points equal
or exceed its Durability attribute times 5.

Before to continue, i'd like to know if i'm wrong or not with this 3 basic rules, starting line of my futur calculations. I'd like your opinion.

Thanks !
Post #: 1
RE: antiaircraft guns efficiency ? - 1/20/2008 7:50:46 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2142
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
Well Flak are a killler when the divisor is a 1.
With divisor rolls between 2-x total suppression from flak depends mostly on the luck of this divisor roll. Lower is better.
When the divisor is low there is a good chance that the Flak will make the heavy bomber miss.


_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to boudi)
Post #: 2
RE: antiaircraft guns efficiency ? - 1/21/2008 12:17:25 PM   
boudi

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline
?

i continue, with an exemple.





In this exemple, as chinese, i could hope beetween 25/1=25 to 25/3=8 suppression points. the result was 8.

The durability of a japanese bomber is 3, i need 15 supression points for damage the bomber. My divisor can be 1,2 or 3. With 3 or 2, i cannot have 15 supressions point. So i have only a probabilty of 1/3 to touche the plane with 25 for the modified dice roll result. Even, i have 3 flaks in this province.

It's almost impossible to touch a Jap bomber...

Where i am wrong ?

< Message edited by boudi -- 1/21/2008 12:19:10 PM >

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 3
RE: antiaircraft guns efficiency ? - 1/21/2008 3:36:06 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2142
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline
The point of Flak isn't allways to get a hit but to cause suppression, which can make the bomber miss. Why do you think that's not relevant? The bomber could of missed its target if the final tally had come to only 11 or less. So in most cases your hoping that your flak throws off the aim just enough to cause a miss. The occational division by 1, that may result in a hit, is just a bonus. Kind of like a 15% chance of a critical hit. 

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to boudi)
Post #: 4
RE: antiaircraft guns efficiency ? - 1/21/2008 6:15:30 PM   
boudi

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

The point of Flak isn't allways to get a hit but to cause suppression, which can make the bomber miss.


Yes, you're right. But in fact, in 3 turns, The Japs had destroyed 2 times a factory for (only) one miss. And i have 3 Flaks on this province, whose one is veteran. How can i do more ?

I'm a little bit disappointed.


(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 5
RE: antiaircraft guns efficiency ? - 1/21/2008 7:59:03 PM   
GKar


Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: boudi

The durability of a japanese bomber is 3, i need 15 supression points for damage the bomber. My divisor can be 1,2 or 3. With 3 or 2, i cannot have 15 supressions point. So i have only a probabilty of 1/3 to touche the plane with 25 for the modified dice roll result. Even, i have 3 flaks in this province.

Doesn't suppression stack? Then you could still damage a bomber because of the accumulated suppression of several shots.

(in reply to boudi)
Post #: 6
RE: antiaircraft guns efficiency ? - 1/21/2008 11:13:19 PM   
boudi

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline
Next turn, spring 1942 :



Where is the interest to buy Flaks ???

(in reply to GKar)
Post #: 7
RE: antiaircraft guns efficiency ? - 1/22/2008 12:35:39 AM   
MrQuiet

 

Posts: 805
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline
quote:

The durability of a japanese bomber is 3, i need 15 supression points for damage the bomber. My divisor can be 1,2 or 3. With 3 or 2, i cannot have 15 supressions point. So i have only a probabilty of 1/3 to touche the plane with 25 for the modified dice roll result. Even, i have 3 flaks in this province.


Durability has no effect on the Bombard ev roll.
Bombard evasion roll (divisor) will be random 1 up to Evasion of targeted unit (jap bombers ev5) so 1-5 or 20% chance of bombard ev1.

Having 3 flaks only makes 2 differences:
1) you can target 6 air units in Ground to air phase of strat attack (2 per flak)
2) you will get a +2 bonus (doubled for bombard attack) if he sends less than 3 air units in the wave.

Also China has the worst AA rating at only 5 dice.

Basicly expect your Chinees Factroys to get tourched, its up to you if you want to repair them but only produceing 1PP every 3rd turn I many times let them stay down instead of provideing more targets for Jap bombers to gain exp.

(in reply to boudi)
Post #: 8
RE: antiaircraft guns efficiency ? - 1/22/2008 6:12:48 PM   
boudi

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline
I'm producing 3 pp per turn, ( 2 PP now) because Japan invaded central China.

(in reply to MrQuiet)
Post #: 9
RE: antiaircraft guns efficiency ? - 1/23/2008 8:08:03 AM   
christian brown


Posts: 1428
Joined: 5/18/2006
From: Vista, CA
Status: offline
I must admit that the case of China being unable to really do anything because of an ahistorical Japanese strategic air campaign is awkward. What is not awkward is that China pretty much did not do anything historically - certainly not in a conventional sense..........I'd sort of prefer to take away China's options in other ways, but there you have it. The real trouble I believe is that Japan could have (and did) utilise captured Chinese plant........the only way to make that possible is to let the Chinese have some factories. Your complaint with AA doesn't seem fully justified to me personally (though I do think their land attack value could be reinforced.) In fairness to the game ask yourself this:
Does the way AA works in other regions (Russia, Germany the UK and so on) feel wrong?

That's the key.......the rules have to apply to all units by all nations......the Chinese situation is supposed to be challenging........but not impossible (UNLESS the Japanese player chooses to make it that way.) I really don't think the inefficiency of AA has much to do with it.



_____________________________

"Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both."
~ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to boudi)
Post #: 10
RE: antiaircraft guns efficiency ? - 1/23/2008 8:56:15 AM   
WanderingHead

 

Posts: 2132
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: christian brown
I must admit that the case of China being unable to really do anything because of an ahistorical Japanese strategic air campaign is awkward. What is not awkward is that China pretty much did not do anything historically - certainly not in a conventional sense..........I'd sort of prefer to take away China's options in other ways, but there you have it. The real trouble I believe is that Japan could have (and did) utilise captured Chinese plant........the only way to make that possible is to let the Chinese have some factories.


Global Glory includes increasing probability of the USA reducing (piecemeal, not full elimination) its gift to Japan the more that Japan bombs Chinese factories, representing the US gradually losing patience with Japanese aggression and trying half-hearted sanctions. It gives the Japanese a little extra choice, to bomb or not to bomb.

At the same time, the Chinese can try to threaten Indochina. If the Japanese garrison it, the US cancels the gift (as was historical). But if the Chinese take Indochina, it gives Japan a free reign in China (USA won't be so upset after China takes the French possession).

Imperfect but models some reasonable political considerations and IMO makes it more interesting. I credit the original ideas to Forwarn45, and the final implementation after much discussion with him.

(in reply to christian brown)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> antiaircraft guns efficiency ? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.080