Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness

 
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 >> Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 5:15:58 AM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
Okay, so I am working on a concept for the new scenario editor (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/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?




Attachment (1)
Post #: 1
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 6:09:32 AM   
obvert


Posts: 10821
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
This is a LOT of work when you could just be having fun playing this monster!

Go for it if you want to pull apart the pieces, but the trouble I see is you never quite know who you're facing on the other side. What commanders? What HQ in range? What upgrades? What fatigue and morale? What experience? What terrain?

So yes, LCUs are different than their AV totals might indicate, but there is still more than devices and numerical capability of an LCUs components to determine what will happen in a battle.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 2
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 6:20:03 AM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1195
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
Such a tool would be helpful to newer players trying to get a firm grasp on the land combat mechanics and increase the rate at which newer players learn how to better manage combat: i.e. when to attack, when to bombard, and so forth.

Much of one's success in land combat in this game depends on experience: knowing how the various variables interact, when an attack is likely to succeed, when an attack is not likely to succeed, and so forth. One ill-conceived large-scale assault can set back an entire campaign by weeks, or even months in the worst case. Therefore, anything that helps newer players acquire this experience more rapidly is helpful.

There are, of course, always surprises and the vague nature of reconnaissance information on enemy positions will always make precise calculations impossible. For example, in one current game, I had reconned Port Moresby extensively and prepared what I thought would be a sufficient force to land and wear down the allies. Once I had landed, however, I found a far stronger contingent of allied artillery than I anticipated, which badly outclassed my 75 mm mountain guns and mortars. I assumed that many of the "guns" spotted by recon were AA, but instead many were Aussie 25 pounders. I have been bogged down for a month as a result of having numerous squads disabled by the Aussie artillery. There is little remedy for these types of surprises that arise from time to time against good opponents who know how to disguise their force composition.


< Message edited by Aurorus -- 10/7/2017 6:23:53 AM >

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 3
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 6:46:00 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2684
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: Victoria, Australia
Status: offline

.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 4
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 3:19:11 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 22503
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
This is awesome! Obvert's and Aurorus's comments are also spot on (don't forget Toto! ): 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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 5
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 4:59:00 PM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
This is a LOT of work when you could just be having fun playing this monster!

1. Not as much work as you might think.
2. If everyone followed your logic, Tracker, IntelMonkey, the various campaign mods that are out there, and even WitP:AE would never have happened.
3. My interest in doing this comes from wanting to understand better how to evaluate land combat scenarios. manually summarizing this information is far more work than writing the programs to do it for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
Go for it if you want to pull apart the pieces, but the trouble I see is you never quite know who you're facing on the other side. What commanders? What HQ in range? What upgrades? What fatigue and morale? What experience? What terrain?

Thus the variables noted in this paragraph:

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfioniteMonkey
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.


Putting the above variables into the calculation serves to remind the user that all of those variables factor into results. My formulas will not match the game results exactly, but when someone is looking at the forces at a base, it might serve to remind them that the variables they have to input will have an effect and to consider tehm before choosing an attack of some type.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 6
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 5:06:33 PM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus
Such a tool would be helpful to newer players trying to get a firm grasp on the land combat mechanics and increase the rate at which newer players learn how to better manage combat: i.e. when to attack, when to bombard, and so forth.
Much of one's success in land combat in this game depends on experience: knowing how the various variables interact, when an attack is likely to succeed, when an attack is not likely to succeed, and so forth. One ill-conceived large-scale assault can set back an entire campaign by weeks, or even months in the worst case. Therefore, anything that helps newer players acquire this experience more rapidly is helpful.

There are, of course, always surprises and the vague nature of reconnaissance information on enemy positions will always make precise calculations impossible. For example, in one current game, I had reconned Port Moresby extensively and prepared what I thought would be a sufficient force to land and wear down the allies. Once I had landed, however, I found a far stronger contingent of allied artillery than I anticipated, which badly outclassed my 75 mm mountain guns and mortars. I assumed that many of the "guns" spotted by recon were AA, but instead many were Aussie 25 pounders. I have been bogged down for a month as a result of having numerous squads disabled by the Aussie artillery. There is little remedy for these types of surprises that arise from time to time against good opponents who know how to disguise their force composition.


Yup, my own uncertainty about land combat and a desire to dig deeper into the devices is what motivated this feature. I started doing a lot of manual calculations and quickly decided to write something to do it for me. With respect to your surprise issue, Ground Attacks or Naval Bombardment with high DL due to heavy recon might have revealed some unit names to clue you in.

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 7
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 5:09:50 PM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 11/3/2016
Status: offline
Answer to question one: a definite YES, and great kudos for the idea and job done.

Aurorus, regarding your situation in P Moresby cited as an example: the game SHOULd provide better or more detailed recon results.

A tank cannot be confused with a jeep or a lorry, so coastal gun or a medium - heavy field gun cannot be confused with AA light guns or machine guns; similarly a mountain gun or mortar cannot be confused with heavy AA, etc...

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 8
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 5:12:42 PM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

This is awesome! Obvert's and Aurorus's comments are also spot on (don't forget Toto! ): 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.

I don't quite get the Toto reference, but I was up late last night and early this morning, so...

My goal is not to predict the outcome of the battle, but a range of potential outcomes. Just the RNG will make any accurate prediction of a single outcome impossible, but I'm piecing together manual references, assumptions, data, and adding my own pure ass guesses. The outcome predictions will be a little better than WAG's, but the relative strength info will be quite valuable on it's own.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 9
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 5:13:27 PM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 11/3/2016
Status: offline
"Ground Attacks or Naval Bombardment with high DL due to heavy recon might have revealed some unit names to clue you in."

Another highly questionable feature;

to get by any mean better recon/intelligence regarding composition and nature of the enemy force and weapons this you cannot, NOT EVEN THROUGH AIR RECON or land combat patrols, but the exact NAME (!!!!!) of the unit, if fired upon, so this you can get!

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 10
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 5:18:06 PM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner
A tank cannot be confused with a jeep or a lorry, so coastal gun or a medium - heavy field gun cannot be confused with AA light guns or machine guns; similarly a mountain gun or mortar cannot be confused with heavy AA, etc...

Not sure I agree with that. With fortification, camoflage, crew training levels, limited camera capability, weather, etc. in play, WW2 era aerial recon should not give anything close to a complete inventory of enemy forces.

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 11
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 5:20:18 PM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 11/3/2016
Status: offline
Not to the current extent in the game!!! A certain degree of mistake and confusion, well yes, but not up to the point we are faced to in game, by no mean.

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 12
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 5:22:08 PM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

"Ground Attacks or Naval Bombardment with high DL due to heavy recon might have revealed some unit names to clue you in."

Another highly questionable feature;

to get by any mean better recon/intelligence regarding composition and nature of the enemy force and weapons this you cannot, NOT EVEN THROUGH AIR RECON or land combat patrols, but the exact NAME (!!!!!) of the unit, if fired upon, so this you can get!

I tend to agree. Names of units should not be revealed by air and bombardment attacks. However, flak concentration and CD fire during naval Bombardment should give you some idea of the kinds of guns your land units will face.

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 13
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 6:01:25 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 22503
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

This is awesome! Obvert's and Aurorus's comments are also spot on (don't forget Toto! ): 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.

I don't quite get the Toto reference, but I was up late last night and early this morning, so...

From this earlier post.


quote:


My goal is not to predict the outcome of the battle, but a range of potential outcomes. Just the RNG will make any accurate prediction of a single outcome impossible, but I'm piecing together manual references, assumptions, data, and adding my own pure ass guesses. The outcome predictions will be a little better than WAG's, but the relative strength info will be quite valuable on it's own.

The range of predictions will be nice, but I think the real gem will be displaying to people the composition of each unit in terms of firepower (here that term meaning all things range/accuracy/effect/etc). At the moment one needs to manually look up the more relevant devices in an LCU and remember their approximate values. When you display that information to people it will be like the difference between "we have 10 tanks and they have 9 tanks" and "we have 10 early model Shermans and they have 9 Panthers" - big change!

_____________________________


(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 14
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 6:34:55 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1195
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner
A tank cannot be confused with a jeep or a lorry, so coastal gun or a medium - heavy field gun cannot be confused with AA light guns or machine guns; similarly a mountain gun or mortar cannot be confused with heavy AA, etc...

Not sure I agree with that. With fortification, camoflage, crew training levels, limited camera capability, weather, etc. in play, WW2 era aerial recon should not give anything close to a complete inventory of enemy forces.


I agree with infinitemonkey. In clear terrain, yes recon may have been more effective than the game engine simulates. In jungle or heavy cover, however, it was impossible to determine the exact composition of an enemy force. In this case, Moreseby is a jungle hex, and Aussie heavy artillery could have been easily camoflaged or easily mistaken for heavy AA.

As to determining force composition by bombardment... well.. naval and aerial bombardment does tend to focus on units with "guns." Unfortunately, base forces with AA often tend to have more "guns" than artillery units and draw bombardment fire. Also ships will often bombard the "base," rather than the units present, at least until the airfield is no longer operational.

Lol... trust me, there have been bombardments at Moresby in this game... every day... for a month. The barrels on Chokai, Atago, and Takao are melting from all the shells they have put into Moresby. Despite 30 days of continuous naval and air bombardment, I have yet to target the individual artillery units specifically (though the 25th Australian brigade seems to have lost nearly all of its 25 pounders).

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 15
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 7:36:59 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1387
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Are you sure, accuracy is actually used in land combat?

And what about Penetration, instead of Anti-Armor? Maybe they are somewhat combined?

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 16
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 8:24:18 PM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Are you sure, accuracy is actually used in land combat?

And what about Penetration, instead of Anti-Armor? Maybe they are somewhat combined?

Nope. I am not. Here is what the editor manual says about those values:

Accuracy is the device’s accuracy.
Effect determines the amount of damage the weapon will cause (generally the weight of the
warhead).
Armor is the width of the armor in millimetres that protects the device (used for AFVs).
Penetration is the maximum armor in millimetres that the weapon can penetrate.
Anti-Armor is the basic combat ability of the device against armoured ground targets.
Anti-Soft is the basic combat ability of the device against non-armoured ground targets

My interpretation of the values (which may be wrong)
Range - How far away can it hit enemy units from?
Accuracy - How likely is it to hit?
Anti-Soft - If it hits a device with armor = 0, how much damage does it do?
Penetration - how much armor can it go through?
Armor - how much armor does it have?
Anti-Armor - If it hits a device with armor, and it can penetrate the armor, how much damage will it do to the armored unit?
Effect - how much does a round weigh and how much supply will it consume to fire it? Nominally, how much damage does it do?

And here is where the manual talks about land combat: (see manual sec 8.4 pg 196-198)

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.

Note that other factors play into the above, I am only noting the device details, nto external influences like

»» 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

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 17
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 8:39:28 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 22503
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
There is much gold to be mined in many years' old posts in the Scenario Design and Modding sub-forum. Some developers and some others very knowledgeable in ballistics and other relevant topics discussed and published many of the answers you will need. They especially did this when normalizing values so they all were represented relevant to a common standard.

BTW "accuracy" for aircraft guns is a combination of accuracy in the common sense plus rate of fire, yielding something that influences 'how likely to hit'. My first guess would be that LCU device accuracy is similar.

At any rate there might be people active now on the forum who saved some of the information from old posts.

_____________________________


(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 18
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 9:27:08 PM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 915
Joined: 11/3/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus


quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner
A tank cannot be confused with a jeep or a lorry, so coastal gun or a medium - heavy field gun cannot be confused with AA light guns or machine guns; similarly a mountain gun or mortar cannot be confused with heavy AA, etc...

Not sure I agree with that. With fortification, camoflage, crew training levels, limited camera capability, weather, etc. in play, WW2 era aerial recon should not give anything close to a complete inventory of enemy forces.


I agree with infinitemonkey. In clear terrain, yes recon may have been more effective than the game engine simulates. In jungle or heavy cover, however, it was impossible to determine the exact composition of an enemy force. In this case, Moreseby is a jungle hex, and Aussie heavy artillery could have been easily camoflaged or easily mistaken for heavy AA.




Not quite. If you can't see, so you cannot, but if you can provide a number of people sighted (!!!) even in jungle environment, so the more you can discern between a tank and a lorry, or a heavy gun from a mortar, and so on.

Incidentally, in Port Moresby's area there weree, IRL, and there are also in game, areas not covered by vegetation i.e. the airport and port area.

חג שמח ושנה טובה


Camuflage, deception, fog and smoke etc. are all true, but not quite enough to justify a 100% !! indetermination!

I believe that digging a little in the code parts creating the recon report and properly linking them to part of the real composition of units in order to provide a script line detaling also what kind of guns and what kind of armoured vehickes are present, may not be so simple and immediate, but also not that impossible endevour to undertake.



Regarding the main issue of the post, I liked very much the idea of InfiniteMonkey and find it most proper

Just one question please, shall you be able or are you planning to show the results on the units panel in game somehow?




< Message edited by adarbrauner -- 10/7/2017 9:29:49 PM >

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 19
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 10:04:30 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1387
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

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.

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 20
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 10:43:50 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1441
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

This is awesome! Obvert's and Aurorus's comments are also spot on (don't forget Toto! ): 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

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 21
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/7/2017 10:45:01 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1441
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
inqistor!

Great to see you back on the forums, Sir!

Mac

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 22
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/8/2017 1:06:27 AM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

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.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 23
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/8/2017 1:08:06 AM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
quote:

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.

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 24
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/12/2017 8:09:53 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 3507
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg


.









_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 25
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/13/2017 9:40:50 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 3910
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Range does not matter for direct land combat at least. I don't know if it matters for artillery bombardment in land combat.

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 26
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/13/2017 10:02:45 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 22503
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

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...

_____________________________


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 27
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/13/2017 11:26:28 PM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 28
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/14/2017 12:28:24 AM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1195
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 10/14/2017 12:31:17 AM >

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 29
RE: Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness - 10/14/2017 7:16:15 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5103
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Beyond AV: Measuring LCU combat effectiveness Page: [1] 2   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

0.160