Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

GA statistical musings

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> GA statistical musings Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
GA statistical musings - 1/5/2017 12:03:06 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1871
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
So, I flipped some turns in some scenario to look onto some data the game would generate. Some results were not what I would expect.

Scenario: Coral Sea stripped of all Allied activity and loaded with all things Japanese, starting with Dec-41. Scenario files attached for the curious.

Batch of tests #1: Aircraft R&D
600 factories of size 30 (100 per airframe), stuffed into New Guinea/Britain and Solomons bases with ample supply. 4- or 1-day turns depending on how far away the airframe arrival was (turned out it did not matter). About 500 turns flipped by starting scenario and doing one cycle, reading data then starting scenario again.
Main question being how the game repairs the factories. I.e. what is the game formula for the probability of repairing 1 unit during a turn.
A guess that was circulating the forums so far (from here) is that the probability P=min[1;S/T] where S is factory size and T is time in days left until airframe arrival. Tests show this guess is roughly OK, but with one significant quirk.
Game calculates stuff in months not days, so the probability of repair is constant during a calendar month. E.g. a 30-size factory with less than a month left until arrival will have exactly 100% chance of repair each turn. But if 31-59 days are left, the chance is ~56,1%. If 60-89 days the chance is ~35,5%. Et cetera.
Good approximation for the probability of repair for 30-size factory would be P=min[1;30/(months*30-8)] where "months" is the number of months to arrival rounded up. Was too lazy to look in depth on other sizes of factories, as 30 is optimal for R&D. But the formula is definitely multiplicative in terms of factory size. Which is ofc not correct wrt true probabilistic behaviour, but that is how game is programmed. E.g. in game two 15-size factories will not repair the same way as one 30-size.

Batch of tests #2: off-base fort building
This thread have started the itch, with the main question being why the heck IDs can't build forts higher than level 2. So I put a bunch of test divisions with different TOEs/commanders/loading costs of devices. At later stages I settled for the modified TOE (450 inf squads + varying amount of support/motosupport and nothing else) to catch the possible loading cost or device number thresholds. It turns out that size of a unit seem to play a major part in deciding if forts can go higher, and looks like size is approximated by loading cost.
Main finding: LCUs of load costs <8000 were able to build forts higher than 3, where LCUs of load cost >11-12k were consistently stuck with level 1-2. All Japanese brigades and regiments fall into the first category, while most of IDs fall into the second, unless you divide them into A/B/C regiments.
I cound not determine what drives IDs to be stuck at forts 1 sometimes.Also, I played only with Japanese LCUs because that's where it is most important. Chinese can dig away just fine already, and other allies do not need off-base fort building that much.
Main finding #2 (surprising) is that disablements do not matter for fort building speed.

Batch of tests #3: morale and experience buildup
Dozens of 30/30 XP/morale divisions with 100% prep sitting in place for 60 turns in combat mode. XP increased to 40-52. Done a spreadsheet table of all the relevant numbers for couple dozen IDs.
Main finding #1 (surprising) is that Leadership skill of ID commander plays absolutely no role in how XP increases. Other skills also do not correlate with XP increase.
Main finding #2 (not surprising) is that Inspiration skill helps increase morale faster. After 60 turns IDs increased morale from 30 to 70-98, with inspiration 40-50 sticking in the lowest part, max inspiration of 77 getting morale to the max too (98), and generally visible correlation between higher insiration and higher end morale

Batch of tests #4: rest and recuperation
Dozens of 100% disabled divisions in base and non-bases hexes in rest mode, combined with lots of support units (HQs with lots of support squads) in combat mode.
Main finding #1 (surprising) is that Admin skill of Div commander plays absolutely no role in how quickly squads would repair. Other skills also do not correlate with repair speed.
Main finding #2 (a bit surprising) is that IDs seem to repair slightly faster in a developed base hex compared to non-base, but not that much faster. In 60 turns standard TOE IDs repaired about 23-30% in base and 16-25% in non-base hexes.
Main finding #3 (not surprising) is that ABC-divided IDs repair significantly (~2 times) faster compared to whole IDs.

Batch of tests #5: effects of LCU morale on mundane stuff
As per some of Lowpe's questions here http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4265621
80 LCUs of different variety sit (or marched) for several turns with either morale 30 or morale 99 (changed for all of them in scenario editor between tries), all other things being equal.
Main finding Morale does not affect: engineers and avsupport efficiency, marching speed, fatigue/disruption/disablements recovery speed.

Batch of tests #6: effects of HQs
Main finding #1 (not surprising) Presense of HQ/HQc/HQy and the fact of preparation gives significant bonus to LCUs attacking the base. LCU without HQ in range perform at 50% efficiency, that is adjusted AV will be halved on average compared to base AV. HQ in range increases efficiency to 70% even w/o prepping for the base. HQ prepping for the base can increase efficiency up to average 150% (with all units 100 prepped), and up to double in single attacks.
Main finding #2 (mildly surprising) Preparation of attacking LCUs to the same base is necessary to use HQ prepping bonus. Average efficiency increase linearly with LCU prep level (from ~70 to ~150) due to HQ bonus. LCU prep level w/o HQs does not matter much for AV.

If you have any suggestions for other tests, I might be able to run them too. No airgroups though, those are a whole new hassle.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 6/25/2017 8:55:23 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: GA statistical musings - 1/6/2017 5:31:00 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8705
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
Is load cost actually the variable that mattered for the forts? What happens if you take those same IDs and reduce the load cost of the devices within them so that they dropped?

Can you redo #4 and look at what happens if you split IDs for 2-3 days and then recombine them? Do they repair faster?

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 2
RE: GA statistical musings - 1/6/2017 10:24:28 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1871
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Is load cost actually the variable that mattered for the forts? What happens if you take those same IDs and reduce the load cost of the devices within them so that they dropped?

Can you redo #4 and look at what happens if you split IDs for 2-3 days and then recombine them? Do they repair faster?

Good ideas both.
First: I tried putting most devices at load cost 1, this brought loading costs of standard TOE IDs to 1-7k (forgot some devices but that's ok). Vast majority of standard TOE IDs got to forts 4 in just 12 days. So yes, this is even better example that total loading cost is the thing. Logic might be that you need more time to bury bigger devices into the ground, or you can't dig them down enough at all. Note that it is not about individual devices though, because I had also set some devices (few in the TOE to keep total loading cost low) at loading cost 50, and it did not matter for reaching high forts quick.
Also it does not matter if you LCU is disabled. IDs dug up quickly while still at 100% disabled (from previous tests)

Second: divided IDs repair their disabled devices considerably faster than whole IDs. Like 2 times faster - in 20 days combat (building forts) + 40 days rest in off-base hex regiments repaired 34-46% (when recombined into ID) compared to 13-26% for whole IDs

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3
RE: GA statistical musings - 1/9/2017 9:59:31 PM   
el lobo


Posts: 825
Joined: 7/20/2013
From: Khon Kaen, Thailand (orig: Sacramento, CA)
Status: offline
GetAsista,

Some nice studies, thanks.

I have run a couple of small studies re R&D and would like to run some more but I fear that I will die of monotonous reputation if I run the long studies I desire. That is, starting each turn over and over.

Do you have some sort of Batch File to run your turns during your studies to alleviate this?


_____________________________

El Lobo (J) vs Rio Bravo (A)
Rio Bravo's AAR - "The War College"
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3851786

Gamey is not a game style. It is someone's definition.

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 4
RE: GA statistical musings - 1/9/2017 10:19:18 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1871
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el lobo
Do you have some sort of Batch File to run your turns during your studies to alleviate this?

No, just a very small scenario with minimum units, all delays set to zero, and 4 days a turn. The latter does not matter for R&D research as probability does not change while you stay in the same calendar month. So you can read 4 time more repair occurencies each run, essentially having 4 times more data.
Also it is handy to look on repairs from Intelligence screen -> aircraft/engine production pool, not from industry screen

Edit: oh, and I changed timeframes by editing aircraft arrival dates and scenario beginning date. Never executed more than 1 starting cycle. Restarted scenario then

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 1/9/2017 10:48:43 PM >

(in reply to el lobo)
Post #: 5
RE: GA statistical musings - 1/10/2017 6:13:31 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2433
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
Can you test one little thing? that is... a Division in terrain split to /A/B/C parts... let it dug in for level 4-5-6 and then recombine. What will be the total fortifications of the whole unit? Is it possible to increase the field fortification levels past the "load coast" limit?

_____________________________

[img]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzOZPXg_qJ22TG43UmJ5UjRsb3c[/img]

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 6
RE: GA statistical musings - 1/10/2017 7:28:45 AM   
szmike

 

Posts: 314
Joined: 8/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Can you test one little thing? that is... a Division in terrain split to /A/B/C parts... let it dug in for level 4-5-6 and then recombine. What will be the total fortifications of the whole unit? Is it possible to increase the field fortification levels past the "load coast" limit?


+1
what happens after you recombine A/B/C in lvl 4 fortification?

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 7
RE: GA statistical musings - 1/10/2017 4:52:59 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1871
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: szmike
quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb
Can you test one little thing? that is... a Division in terrain split to /A/B/C parts... let it dug in for level 4-5-6 and then recombine. What will be the total fortifications of the whole unit? Is it possible to increase the field fortification levels past the "load coast" limit?

+1
what happens after you recombine A/B/C in lvl 4 fortification?

Sure, tested that already. When all ABC are at Xp forts, recombined division gets X without p (gets p on the next turn but will never build it upwards after that becasue of loading cost limit). I assume ID gets averaged fort level from all ABCs. Did not test what happens when forts are different between ABCs though, assume it is some kind of average too.
This is main way to get your Japanese IDs dig in deeper than 2

(in reply to szmike)
Post #: 8
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/14/2017 12:00:01 AM   
el lobo


Posts: 825
Joined: 7/20/2013
From: Khon Kaen, Thailand (orig: Sacramento, CA)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

If you have any suggestions for other tests, I might be able to run them too. No airgroups though, those are a whole new hassle.

GetAssista

A question I have, and judging by other AARs, others do also.

Re, A/C R&D, what would be the difference time wise in starting R&Ding an a/c from the beginning of the game as opposed to starting R&Ding later in the game.

For example the Frank or Sam. What would the difference be in R&Ding, say fifteen or twenty Locations, from day one, as opposed to starting later say, March of '43. The later scenario would allow you to heavily R&D say the George, and once it comes on-line, switch the Locations to the Frank or Sam and heavily R&D them.

The bottom line is, how many months difference for the later a/c. The engines would also need to be factored-in. (The extra cost will have to decided by the player if it is worth it or not.)

I know running this will take some time to accomplish but it would be nice if you could manage it.

_____________________________

El Lobo (J) vs Rio Bravo (A)
Rio Bravo's AAR - "The War College"
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3851786

Gamey is not a game style. It is someone's definition.

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 9
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/18/2017 6:23:17 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1871
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el lobo
I know running this will take some time to accomplish but it would be nice if you could manage it.

Yes, that's a interesting practical question to derive the whole matrix of expected_accelerated_date = M(#factories, frame_time_to_arrival). I just think it is not feasible to do it ingame. E.g. you need to do at least 10 runs from start to finish for each cell to account for lucky/unlucky repairs helping/hindering ongoing research. So it is 10 х 500-900turns

It is preferrrable to do an outside calculation. Given that you have an estimate of probability of unit repairing (and a pretty consistent one I'd say) for each timeframe, you can run simulations e.g. in Excel using this probability

(in reply to el lobo)
Post #: 10
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/18/2017 1:11:44 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8663
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Yeah and when you do, you will find it matches in game results. Meaning, you setup 12x30 factories on A7M2 on 7Dec42. Now, the probabilities are that they won't repair until late '43 or early '44 on average. HOWEVER, a couple will be much slower and a couple will be MUCH faster. Those 2 or 3 that repair faster start pulling the date in which causes all of them to repair faster which then get the ac to arrive sooner than the average expected result, if that makes sense. In practical terms, the aggregate solution states that you won't get the A7M2 until late '44 at best. The independent solution shows that you could get it much sooner. Be sure you factor in GA's correct observation that the probability of each factory only seems to update each month, not each day. This is where a good 'roll' can really distort things (ie, it really expands the probability event).

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 11
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/18/2017 1:50:50 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25068
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
Here I expected some musings or observations regarding the state of Georgia. All manner of options availed themselves, some of which we would require our most prominent Georgian (Canoerebel) to answer for.

_____________________________


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 12
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/23/2017 11:54:46 AM   
el lobo


Posts: 825
Joined: 7/20/2013
From: Khon Kaen, Thailand (orig: Sacramento, CA)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

P=min[1;30/(months*30-8)]

GetAssista and/or other mathematicians.

I would like to run a study using your R&D (tests #1) formula in a spreed-sheet, however I do not fully understand it, in particular, the "min." How would I put that into a formula?

Thanks.


_____________________________

El Lobo (J) vs Rio Bravo (A)
Rio Bravo's AAR - "The War College"
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3851786

Gamey is not a game style. It is someone's definition.

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 13
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/23/2017 11:16:37 PM   
el lobo


Posts: 825
Joined: 7/20/2013
From: Khon Kaen, Thailand (orig: Sacramento, CA)
Status: offline
Also, why not 22 instead of 30-8? Parentheses?


_____________________________

El Lobo (J) vs Rio Bravo (A)
Rio Bravo's AAR - "The War College"
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3851786

Gamey is not a game style. It is someone's definition.

(in reply to el lobo)
Post #: 14
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/24/2017 1:17:53 AM   
el lobo


Posts: 825
Joined: 7/20/2013
From: Khon Kaen, Thailand (orig: Sacramento, CA)
Status: offline
Also I have decided to run this with JavaScript, if that matters.

_____________________________

El Lobo (J) vs Rio Bravo (A)
Rio Bravo's AAR - "The War College"
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3851786

Gamey is not a game style. It is someone's definition.

(in reply to el lobo)
Post #: 15
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/24/2017 4:51:07 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1871
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el lobo
quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
P=min[1;30/(months*30-8)]

GetAssista and/or other mathematicians.
I would like to run a study using your R&D (tests #1) formula in a spreed-sheet, however I do not fully understand it, in particular, the "min." How would I put that into a formula?
Thanks.

First a note on calculating "months". Assume your airframe arrives at jan-44.
If you are anywhere in the month of:
Dec-43 then months=1
Nov-43 then months=2
Oct-43 then months=3
... etc

Now put months into the formula:
Dec-43 then 30/(months*30-8) = 30/(1*30-8) = 30/22 ~ 1.36, but the probability cannot be greater than 1, so substitute this with 1. This is what "min" (minimum) is for
Nov-43 then 30/(months*30-8) = 30/(2*30-8) = 30/52 ~ 0.577
Oct-43 then 30/(months*30-8) = 30/(3*30-8) = 30/82 ~ 0.366
... etc

(in reply to el lobo)
Post #: 16
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/27/2017 12:24:26 PM   
el lobo


Posts: 825
Joined: 7/20/2013
From: Khon Kaen, Thailand (orig: Sacramento, CA)
Status: offline
Thanks GA. I don't mean to hijack your thread but you kind-of opened it up with your reference to this thread. Besides, I know you are not opposed to discussions so a quick comment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

A guess that was circulating the forums so far (from here) i

As mentioned, I looked at GA's numbers but they did not quite answer for what I was looking so I worked with alimentary's formula from the thread above.

The chart below is practically useless because alimentary's simple but elegant formula fails to address two things, randomness and the appearance that repair accelerates as the time of availability nears. This is not to disparage alimentary in any way, he is obviously a very intelligent individual. Several times through-out the thread his "program" is mentioned but I did not find it. Perhaps his program addressed these issues.

The only thing that can be derived with any certainty from the chart below is that the sooner the Japanese player starts his R&D on an air-frame, the better. But we already knew that. Like I said, practically useless.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

El Lobo (J) vs Rio Bravo (A)
Rio Bravo's AAR - "The War College"
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3851786

Gamey is not a game style. It is someone's definition.

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 17
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/27/2017 12:41:38 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17316
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Good job!

I know that Spidery wrote a formula for estimating plane completion...it generated a range: earliest to latest. I am not sure he posted it anywhere, but I am pretty sure he described it somewhere in his AAR.

A great place for Japan to dig in divisions is some of the off base border hexes with the Soviets. Of course most games will never see any actual combat there, and you might have to relocate the border troops to protect Korea.

There are several other important x3 terrain where you can get a division dug in to level 3 or 4 and should be a priority since you know combat will eventually find them.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/27/2017 12:47:12 PM >

(in reply to el lobo)
Post #: 18
RE: GA statistical musings - 2/27/2017 5:17:06 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1871
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el lobo
Thanks GA. I don't mean to hijack your thread but you kind-of opened it up with your reference to this thread. Besides, I know you are not opposed to discussions so a quick comment.

I've done my own sim some time ago in Excel, so here it is with updated probability from my research here. You can choose date of airframe original arrival, date of research start, with 1 to 10 R&D factories running (with an option to have some factories starting later), with or w/o engine bonus.
Edit colored areas except output one and run RND. The latter is done automatically by editing any cell. Output is in terms of simulated airframe arrival date.
I hope all formulas are self-explanatory


Attachment (1)

(in reply to el lobo)
Post #: 19
RE: GA statistical musings - 3/1/2017 7:47:26 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17316
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: el lobo
Thanks GA. I don't mean to hijack your thread but you kind-of opened it up with your reference to this thread. Besides, I know you are not opposed to discussions so a quick comment.

I've done my own sim some time ago in Excel, so here it is with updated probability from my research here. You can choose date of airframe original arrival, date of research start, with 1 to 10 R&D factories running (with an option to have some factories starting later), with or w/o engine bonus.
Edit colored areas except output one and run RND. The latter is done automatically by editing any cell. Output is in terms of simulated airframe arrival date.
I hope all formulas are self-explanatory



Thanks, how do you mod it for less than 10 factories?

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 20
RE: GA statistical musings - 3/1/2017 8:48:52 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1871
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Thanks, how do you mod it for less than 10 factories?

F4 cell describes it.
More clear, mentioned COUNTIF function is in the same column, you should modify its range (which reflects # of facs) for the whole column

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 3/1/2017 8:50:43 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 21
RE: GA statistical musings - 3/1/2017 10:24:10 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 17316
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Thanks, how do you mod it for less than 10 factories?

F4 cell describes it.
More clear, mentioned COUNTIF function is in the same column, you should modify its range (which reflects # of facs) for the whole column


I read that, but I don't think it was in English. My bad,

So, if I were to allocate three size 30 factories on Dec 7, 1941 to research the Frank B (one of my favorite planes that I never use) it would come in March 10, 1944 with the engine bonus.

That seems way too early, an almost 15 month acceleration (6/45 to 3/44). I must be doing something wrong.

I ran a second, with a 12/45 plane with 1 factory and engine bonus and got 9 Oct 1944. I certainly am doing it wrong.

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 22
RE: GA statistical musings - 3/2/2017 5:18:49 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1871
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
So, if I were to allocate three size 30 factories on Dec 7, 1941 to research the Frank B (one of my favorite planes that I never use) it would come in March 10, 1944 with the engine bonus.

That seems way too early, an almost 15 month acceleration (6/45 to 3/44). I must be doing something wrong.

I did the same, and am getting July-August 44 in arrival. Check that you changed COUNTIF range in all the formulas in the column F.
Other than that yeah, engine bonus is pretty powerful. Once all 3 facs are repaired you would crank up advances every 16-17 days

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 23
RE: GA statistical musings - 3/3/2017 7:47:41 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 1163
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline
Good post, it was wondering how factory repair worked. That's GA.

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 24
RE: GA statistical musings - 6/18/2017 5:49:29 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1871
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
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

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 6/18/2017 7:38:05 PM >

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 25
RE: GA statistical musings - 6/18/2017 11:05:47 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1974
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: online
Have or will you test if the HQ(s) have to be in the combat hex or is it effective if they/it are just withing their command range?

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 26
RE: GA statistical musings - 6/19/2017 1:14:58 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8705
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

Have or will you test if the HQ(s) have to be in the combat hex or is it effective if they/it are just withing their command range?


I would be very surprised if they didn't function just within range, not necessarily within the same hex.

@GA - did the units have enough Support devices without the presence of the HQs in the hex? That is the one indirect thing that an HQ in the hex could do outside of what you appear to have just tested. If they didn't have enough Support without the HQ units, I'm hesitant to chalk this difference up to the presence of HQs alone.

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 27
RE: GA statistical musings - 6/19/2017 4:40:08 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1974
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: online
I would agree that they should, but there are some nooks and crannies in the code.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 28
RE: GA statistical musings - 6/19/2017 4:53:12 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8705
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I would agree that they should, but there are some nooks and crannies in the code.


This one would qualify as a bug.

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 29
RE: GA statistical musings - 6/19/2017 7:20:22 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1871
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
@GA - did the units have enough Support devices without the presence of the HQs in the hex? That is the one indirect thing that an HQ in the hex could do outside of what you appear to have just tested. If they didn't have enough Support without the HQ units, I'm hesitant to chalk this difference up to the presence of HQs alone.

I've done some tests earlier on that urban legend that support helps in adjusted AV. Had a tank regiment attack completely stripped of support. Adjusted AV was roughly equal to base AV even without any support squads in the hex.

Also:
quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
TOE of ID had 450 infantry squads and 450 support


< Message edited by GetAssista -- 6/19/2017 7:39:33 AM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> GA statistical musings Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
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

0.189