Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Strategic Bombing Chart

 
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] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> Strategic Bombing Chart Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Strategic Bombing Chart - 3/31/2021 4:56:14 AM   
LoneRunner

 

Posts: 174
Joined: 8/16/2020
Status: offline
The information provided on the strategic bombing chart does not appear to be always accurate.

For example, one month the USA bombed two mines and destroyed 3 strength on each mine for a total of 6 strength. The strategic bombing chart showed Germany lost 25 MPPs from enemy activity. That amount may seem incorrect but actually, the chart is accurate because it's showing the cumulative effect of bombing.

Here's how it works. Mines generate 2 MPPs per strength point. So destroying 3 strength on a mine is worth 6 lost MPPs.

The turn I bombed, Germany lost 6 MPPs from bombing. The next turn Germany only lost 4 MPPs because the mine automatically rebuilds one strength at the beginning of each turn. The next turn the loss is only 2 MPPs.

So the cumulative losses from bombing one mine are 6 + 4 + 2 = 12.

I bombed 2 mines, so Germany's cumulative loss from the bombing was 24 MPPs. The chart showed 25 MPPs lost. One MPP difference is okay in my book.

During the bombing I lost 2 strength points on the bombers. The strategic bombing chart showed zero enemy bomber losses. Not so accurate.

The next month USA bombed three mines and a major city. Destroyed 12 strength points on the mines and 6 supply on the city. The destroyed mines were worth 62 cumulative MPPs. Here's how I calculated that: Five strength losses on one mine (10 + 8 + 6 + 4 + 2) equals 30 cumulative MPPs. Four strength losses on the second mine equals 20 cumulative MPPs (8 + 6 + 4 + 2). Three strength losses on the third mine equals 12 cumulative MPPs.

Major cities provide 1 MPP per supply point. And cities repair one supply per turn. So the cumulative MPPs from destroying 6 supply on a city is 21 (6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1).

According to my calculations the total MPP losses from bombing should have been 83. The strategic bombing chart showed 91 MPPs lost. About 10% off.

The USA lost 1 bomber strength point during the bombing. However the strategic bombing chart showed 45 enemy bombing losses.

I noticed these results were consistent month after month. The strategic bombing chart showed losses from enemy activity that were sort of in the ball park. But enemy bomber losses reported on the chart did not seem to reflect actual bomber losses.
Post #: 1
RE: Strategic Bombing Chart - 4/1/2021 6:02:59 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 4979
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Thanks LoneRunner,

I looked into it and there was definitely something amiss which I believe I've now corrected for the next update.

For example, the cumulative MPP losses should round out to the same value as your calculations, e.g. in your one example you correctly calculated 24 MPP, and the chart should now show 24 MPP losses as well.

For the bomber losses, in the few tests I've run since the correction it all looks correct on my end as well. For example, in one test the bomber lost 2 strength points, and it correctly showed as 35 MPP worth of bomber losses.

Hubert

_____________________________


(in reply to LoneRunner)
Post #: 2
RE: Strategic Bombing Chart - 4/1/2021 9:07:12 PM   
EarlyDoors


Posts: 489
Joined: 12/16/2018
From: uk
Status: offline
Aha, so the bomber losses were not as bad as I thought I was?

I don't think the losses of escorting fighters are included in the bomber losses. Should they be? I'm undecided

_____________________________

14-16 PBEM++
-----------
Honours the game
-----------
http://scwaw-rankings.s3-website.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 3
RE: Strategic Bombing Chart - 4/4/2021 3:59:42 AM   
LoneRunner

 

Posts: 174
Joined: 8/16/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Thanks LoneRunner,

I looked into it and there was definitely something amiss which I believe I've now corrected for the next update.

For example, the cumulative MPP losses should round out to the same value as your calculations, e.g. in your one example you correctly calculated 24 MPP, and the chart should now show 24 MPP losses as well.

For the bomber losses, in the few tests I've run since the correction it all looks correct on my end as well. For example, in one test the bomber lost 2 strength points, and it correctly showed as 35 MPP worth of bomber losses.

Hubert


Thank you Hubert. As always, I am truly impressed by your support for this game.

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 4
RE: Strategic Bombing Chart - 4/5/2021 3:24:23 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 4979
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors

Aha, so the bomber losses were not as bad as I thought I was?

I don't think the losses of escorting fighters are included in the bomber losses. Should they be? I'm undecided


Right now, they are not included, but off hand I think it makes sense to be included.


< Message edited by Hubert Cater -- 4/5/2021 3:34:07 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to EarlyDoors)
Post #: 5
RE: Strategic Bombing Chart - 4/5/2021 3:34:48 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 4979
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoneRunner


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Thanks LoneRunner,

I looked into it and there was definitely something amiss which I believe I've now corrected for the next update.

For example, the cumulative MPP losses should round out to the same value as your calculations, e.g. in your one example you correctly calculated 24 MPP, and the chart should now show 24 MPP losses as well.

For the bomber losses, in the few tests I've run since the correction it all looks correct on my end as well. For example, in one test the bomber lost 2 strength points, and it correctly showed as 35 MPP worth of bomber losses.

Hubert


Thank you Hubert. As always, I am truly impressed by your support for this game.


Our pleasure


_____________________________


(in reply to LoneRunner)
Post #: 6
RE: Strategic Bombing Chart - 4/6/2021 3:48:58 AM   
LoneRunner

 

Posts: 174
Joined: 8/16/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

quote:

ORIGINAL: EarlyDoors

Aha, so the bomber losses were not as bad as I thought I was?

I don't think the losses of escorting fighters are included in the bomber losses. Should they be? I'm undecided


Right now, they are not included, but off hand I think it makes sense to be included.


Attempting to be too accurate could open a can of worms, so to speak.

For example, if losses of escorting fighters are included, then losses of intercepting fighters should also be included.

Also, I use strategic bombers to attack land and air units. Should bomber losses associated with bombing units be excluded from the strategic bombing chart? What if the unit was an anti-air unit in Berlin?

Also, I use strategic bombers to cut off convoys from Sweden. Should those convoy losses be included?

Whew!

< Message edited by LoneRunner -- 4/6/2021 4:59:34 AM >

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 7
RE: Strategic Bombing Chart - 4/6/2021 1:02:30 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 4979
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Hi LoneRunner,

I agree as when I was looking into it yesterday I pretty much came to the same conclusion, not to mention that coding it all to consider all possibilities became more complex than the quick fix I had hoped.

Hubert

_____________________________


(in reply to LoneRunner)
Post #: 8
RE: Strategic Bombing Chart - 5/7/2021 4:39:41 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 4979
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Just to bring this topic back up as a possible issue was reported in the Tech Support thread. I also forgot to make a note of this in the VERSION NOTES for the latest patch.

In the latest patch, a "correction" was made to have unit losses, in terms of MPPs, match the amount that would be spent to reinforce that unit.

For example, if a Strategic Bomber lost 3 strength points, it would now be reported as losing 52 MPPs which matches what would be spent to reinforce that unit, e.g. 52 MPPs.

In the MPPs graphs, lost and spent would be equivalent for this example.

Previously however, it would have been reported as 30% loss based on the original cost. So if the Strategic Bomber cost 350 MPPs, the lost graph would have shown 105 MPPs.

* * *

There is now a more significant difference in MPPs lost versus what was previously shown in the MPPs graphs screen. Thus it has been noticed.

That being said, I can see arguments for it being represented one way or the other.


For example, if we report the losses based on the original cost then what you had spent on the unit will match the losses if let's say the unit is fully lost, e.g. 350 MPPs spent on the unit will show as 350 MPPs lost when the unit is destroyed. But your reinforcement spending does not match the calculated losses everytime the unit loses strength points and is reinforced.

If on the other hand we report the losses based on the reinforcement costs, then what you spend to reinforce will match the reported losses as I have shown in my example above. However, the reported losses will not match up with what was originally spent on the unit when purchased.


Is there a prevailing preference for this going forward?



_____________________________


(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 9
RE: Strategic Bombing Chart - 5/8/2021 7:14:58 AM   
EarlyDoors


Posts: 489
Joined: 12/16/2018
From: uk
Status: offline
Tricky.

Is the problem the same when original price is reduced by production technology or reformed units?

When ‘topping up’ a unit at reduced cost, the average strength point will then lie somewhere between the two

Is it possible to either store the new average strength point cost against the object instance , or dynamically calculate it, and then report that figure?

_____________________________

14-16 PBEM++
-----------
Honours the game
-----------
http://scwaw-rankings.s3-website.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 10
RE: Strategic Bombing Chart - 5/8/2021 5:15:36 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 4979
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Thanks EarlyDoors and this did get me thinking and I think the solution here is to just have two separate 'spent' and 'lost' contributions to the graphs.

For example:

Spent - Purchases
Spent - Reinforcement

Lost - Destroyed Unit
Lost - Strength Points

Then things can be paired off accordingly and should actually be much more accurate.

For example:

1) Purchase a Strategic Bomber, spent is increased by 350 MPPs.
2) Only when the Bomber is destroyed, lost MPPs is increased by 350 MPPs

1a) Reinforce a Strategic Bomber, spent is increased by the reinforcement cost
1b) Only when a Strategic Bomber is reinforced, the lost MPPs is increased by the reinforcement cost


How this will differ in game is that right now, when a unit takes damage, its lost MPPs is automatically increased. So a Strategic Bomber attacks a resource, and that Bomber suffers damage, the lost MPPs relative to that damage are immediately added to the graph.

In the above proposal, the lost MPPs will only be added to the graph once the Strategic Bomber is actually reinforced as this will ensure that in case any reductions in cost to reinforce have been applied, it will not be different from the time it took damage, to the time it is reinforced, e.g. the losses and reinforcement are only added at the same time it actually happens.

In the above proposal, once a unit is fully destroyed, only then will its lost MPPs be added to the graph but based on the original purchase price of the unit, not for any reduced current price of the unit.


* * *


It will change how the graphs get updated, just slightly as losses will only show when the unit is reinforced, or destroyed, but it should be more accurate in terms of spent vs losses.

Thoughts?

< Message edited by Hubert Cater -- 5/8/2021 5:18:42 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to EarlyDoors)
Post #: 11
RE: Strategic Bombing Chart - 5/9/2021 2:40:38 AM   
LoneRunner

 

Posts: 174
Joined: 8/16/2020
Status: offline
Thank you for investigating the Strategic Bombing chart Hubert. You've come up with an interesting solution by including spent, destroyed, and reinforced on the chart. Here's some thoughts on the subject.

I'd rather not include "Spent-Purchases" on the chart because it provides your opponent too much information. Basically your opponent gets eight turns advance notice that you are building strategic bombers and knows exactly how many you are building. I like the fog of war on production where you are attempting to out think your opponent based on limited information.

Also, it would be pretty unusual to actually destroy a strategic bombing unit during a strategic bombing raid. I haven't seen it. Not many people are going to strategic bomb with a unit under five strength. A strategic bomber could be destroyed by an invasion force or bombing by medium or tactical bombers but that kind of loss is not related to strategic bombing, so I don't think it should be included on the chart.

As a result, I think we would be pretty safe basing the cost of strategic bombing solely on reinforcement cost.

< Message edited by LoneRunner -- 5/9/2021 2:49:52 AM >

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 12
RE: Strategic Bombing Chart - 5/9/2021 4:45:12 AM   
LoneRunner

 

Posts: 174
Joined: 8/16/2020
Status: offline
Early Door is right, reinforcement cost of strategic bombers could vary widely among nations based on research levels of strategic bombers and production technology.

I liked Hubert's imaginative solution. Basing bomber losses on actual reinforcement cost bypasses all the complicated connections of bomber losses, research levels, and MPPs. Besides, it makes sense that MPPs are not lost unless the bomber is repaired. Nice work Hubert.

Someone could ask, what if research levels of bomber and production tech changed after the bomber was lost. Would the reinforcement cost be based on the current research level or the research level when the bomber was lost or the research level when the bomber was built? I'd say the difference isn't worth tracking (get a life, haha). Just use the actual reinforcement cost.

< Message edited by LoneRunner -- 5/9/2021 4:52:39 AM >

(in reply to LoneRunner)
Post #: 13
RE: Strategic Bombing Chart - 5/10/2021 12:48:24 PM   
The Land

 

Posts: 766
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline
To my mind, it doesn't make much sense waiting until a unit is reinforced before calculating it for the losses. After all you have suffered the losses now, even if you don't ever reinforce the unit (thinking of the mid-game Royal Navy and late war for a losing Germany as occasions where you normally don't reinforce all units). You would end up with a significant, possibly dramatic, under-estimate of losses suffered.

What I would suggest is:
A unit's "value" is the cost to now build a new unit of the same type and with the same upgrades.
A unit is damaged - each point of damage adds 4% of value to cost column
A unit is destroyed - in addition to the losses for damage, count a further 10% of the unit's value (if it was in supply) or 60% of the unit's value (if out of supply) because of the extra cost of rebuilding

It would also be very handy to see this split down by air, land and sea.


_____________________________


(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 14
RE: Strategic Bombing Chart - 5/10/2021 2:08:53 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 4979
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Thanks for the feedback everyone and I'll have to think on this some more as there are some very good points raised.

It might just be the easiest to simply go back to what we had before, in that losses are immediately calculated and applied based on the original purchase cost plus whatever current upgrades have been applied to the unit to increase the cost of the unit.

In the past we only included purchase cost in the 'spent' graph, and the strength losses for the 'losses' graph and while not overly detailed, it was simple and straightforward and accurate enough as a unit that was destroyed did eventually equate to the original purchase cost etc.

I'll continue to mull this over and keep this open to any further feedback in the meantime.

_____________________________


(in reply to The Land)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> Strategic Bombing Chart 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

0.258