If that's the correct formula for damage, then sea defense is crap compared to hull values. Am I reading that correctly?
If that's the correct formula for damage, then sea defense is crap compared to hull values. Am I reading that correctly?
This sounds very reasonable but I do not quite get it. Could you fill the formula in with my test result.
FP = 61%
EFP = 83.6%
DM = 0.15
FC = 0.10
Leader skill 2 = 20%
Hull penalty 0%
Somehow my way always worked! I never researched FC so it is was always 0.10 therefore 1.1, did has something to do with it. Can you show me why it worked the way it did compared to your formula.
FP is always a round number. In my findings it would be 0.610?
How can it be 0.661 or 0.682 in your calculations?
Did you find how superior Tactician trait influences the whole?
If FC is important then probably Commander Decision making is also more important (increases target choice by 0.05 each tech).
Hey Dreezzzzz,
Plugging your numbers into my formula works:
EP = (FP + DM)*FC
EP = (.61 + .15)*1.1
EP = .836 or 83.6%
Hull Value is calculated to the 1/10th of a %. If you hover your cursor over the Hull Value, you will find the complete Hull Penalty - what is displayed in the fleet info box is a rounded (down) value.
In the battle I used as an example above, the Hull Penalties were 8.7 and 7.8 respectively. If you go into battle with a fleet that has a hull penalty, you may notice the FP does have a value with a decimal. In my case above they were 66.1% for JAP and 68.2%for USA.
No, I can only guess what +10% Fleet Concentration does. Perhaps this in some way modifies FP as well? Without knowing how the AI determines the initial unmodded FP, that is mere speculation. It doesn't seem to modify the attack/defense values directly, at least not so far as the tooltip reveals.
Probably - another instance of not knowing exactly what the modifier (in this case "target choice") modifies!
The formula's you guys have been discussing to date still require that either the fleet positioning value or the effective positioning value is known. I think it would be informative to know how to solve without know these variables. I know positioning values in the single digits are possible via stacking, what I don't know is how stacking effects positioning.
My guess is that fleet positioning has a base value which is modified by a small random multiplier. E.g. every fleet starts with 50% positioning; with a variable +10% or -10%. Stacking penalties reduce the fleet positioning, while as the research you guys have done shows, technology and leader skill increases positioning.
The formula's you guys have been discussing to date still require that either the fleet positioning value or the effective positioning value is known. I think it would be informative to know how to solve without know these variables. I know positioning values in the single digits are possible via stacking, what I don't know is how stacking effects positioning.
My guess is that fleet positioning has a base value which is modified by a small random multiplier. E.g. every fleet starts with 50% positioning; with a variable +10% or -10%. Stacking penalties reduce the fleet positioning, while as the research you guys have done shows, technology and leader skill increases positioning.
EP = [(RR + Admiral's skill - HP)+ DM]*FC
Does someone have hard numbers on friendly fire as correlated to fleet and ship positioning?
I can almost guarantee that it doesn't affect STR/ORG damage directly.I think our next big problem to solve, however, is the impact of positioning on strength and org damage to the opposing fleet. It is odd, because while positioning does not effect attack or defense effectiveness, it certainly relates to STR/ORG damage.
Does someone have hard numbers on friendly fire as correlated to fleet and ship positioning? I mean, I know it gets worse, but I can't recall any discussions of thresholds or overall impact.
And good work, guys.
Great work!
To be clear: DM stands for doctrine modifiers? FC stands for Fire Control?
I think our next big problem to solve, however, is the impact of positioning on strength and org damage to the opposing fleet. It is odd, because while positioning does not effect attack or defense effectiveness, it certainly relates to STR/ORG damage.
I can almost guarantee that it doesn't affect STR/ORG damage directly.
That would go against everything we know about HoI3 mechanics. STR/ORG damage are always proportional to attack/defense effectiveness in all other cases. This is assuming same (sea) attack/(sea) defence values are studied.
IMHO it therefore require extraordinary proof to prove that positioning would be an exception from the rest of the game. If a ship is firing it should inflict the exact same damage regardless of if positioning is 4% or 104%.
What I think happens is that positioning effects how big the chance is your ship will go from grey (not firing) to light (firing), and also how many ships that will start firing as they enter combat.
And since damage inflicted is related to how much off your fleet is firing... well there you have it.
Great work!
To be clear: DM stands for doctrine modifiers? FC stands for Fire Control?
I think our next big problem to solve, however, is the impact of positioning on strength and org damage to the opposing fleet. It is odd, because while positioning does not effect attack or defense effectiveness, it certainly relates to STR/ORG damage.
EP = [(RR + Admiral's skill - HP)+ DM]*FC
That may be an effect of positioning, but I also think, based on what I've read on these forums and witnessed in game, that the speed of the individual ships plays a part, as does a bit of randomness on which ships get to fire their guns. Again, this is not to say that positioning doesn't necessarily play a part, but it can't be the only factor.
I would also speculate that the core battle mechanic is the same, i.e., the number of shots is based on the attack value (modified by attack efficiency), with defense values (modified by defense efficiency) allowing for a certain amount of reduced-chance shots, etc.
I am not so ready to agree about the final point (in bold) above, though. We've already seen that each "hit" scored causes an amount of damage affected by the defending ship's Hull Value. Would it not be possible that each "hit" scored may also inflict damage based on the Attacker's positioning? Just an idea... speculation, really!
That may be an effect of positioning, but I also think, based on what I've read on these forums and witnessed in game, that the speed of the individual ships plays a part, as does a bit of randomness on which ships get to fire their guns. Again, this is not to say that positioning doesn't necessarily play a part, but it can't be the only factor.
Is there any possibility that EP actually modifies the chance that each "shot" will become a "hit?" We know from the defines.lua that the Base Chance is .70 and NO_DEF is .48; is it possible that EP could modify this?
And my point was that once firing the average damage inflicted should be the exactly same, and not affected by positioning.
I would suggest leaving the formula as your first conclusion while we don't know how FP is calculated but we do always know it value
so:
EP = FP + DM * FC
Don't forget the ( )'s: there's a big difference between FP + DM * FC and (FP + DM)*FC
I would also argue that we do know partly how FP is calculated: You add the admiral's skill bonus and subtract the Hull Penalty. Yes, the RR may have some unseen modifiers, but knowing that it is between .4 and .59 certainly does help with understanding it all. Think of this: the largest deviation in the RR has 38% of the effect of the largest deviation in admiral skill (assuming 5 is the highest) and 24% the effect of the largest deviation in HP.