From: Sunderland, UK
LY was concerned that potential opponents might think he had 'insider' information. He received no unauthorized disclosures; just detail descriptions that any good mathematician with an appropriate test bed could figure our for themselves, given the desire and the time. This is a synopsis.
Reaction to a sub and the number of ships having a chance at making contact is governed by the TF leader’s stats (skill, aggression, etc..). Each ship that gets a chance to contact will fail or succeed based on its own skipper’s stats. Aggression is modified a bit depending on the kind of TF and the kind of combat. ASW ships in an ASW TF contacting a sub, will get full reaction marks. A SurfCom TF in contact with a sub might get some reaction minuses, for example.
When a ship attacks, the better the crew experience, the better the attack profile used. This is the number of ASW weapon slots that shoot (sometimes, not all ASW weapon slots are used), the number of attacks the ship makes, and the % chance of maintaining contact after each attack. Much like the split tube thing, if all DC are concentrated in one device slot, the number of ASW weapons used will equal the Num value in the slot (i.e., maybe 6 or 8). If the DCs are split out into multiple Device slots (left, right, stern, front, etc..) each slot has a chance to shoot (or not), depending on crew experience. The chance to hit with “each” slot, for “each” pass, is also a function of crew experience. So, more passes (attacks) by more weapons (slots) by more ships ups the aggregate odds considerably.
There is a chance of losing contact after each pass by each ship. The sub gets a chance to evade. Again depends on crew experience and leader stats. If you have 3 superior ships and 1 dolt, the dolt could lose the contact, and the sub evades. However, if all the ships have similar (high) crew experience and similarly skilled skippers, the chance of an early termination is significantly reduced. One might think of exp as a “base” % chance to do something. Base chances are modified in different ways in each step, but a base is a base. A 70 exp crew might have a “base” 70% chance of making multiple attacks, using every weapon slot, hitting with a weapon slot, and maintaining contact. A 40 exp crew will experience the same modifications but start with a much lower base and likely lose it for everybody else. Good old successive probability mathematics.
There is no specific benefit for specific ships working together, but a task group that gains experience together receives a synergistic benefit by its uniformity. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Although the benefit does not apply to specific ships, it does make it important to find replacements for damaged TF members that have leader and experience values that are very similar to the others in order to maintain the synergy; good with good aggregates to superior, good with mediocre aggregates to mediocre, mediocre with mediocre aggregates to poor.
Sounds like a variant on Gibbs sampling (MCMC). There's also something akin to Bayesian survival analysis. Let me sleep on it.
See this posting. It develops a comment by Vernor Vinge discussed here.
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." email@example.com