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.
< Message edited by GetAssista -- 6/25/2017 8:55:23 AM >