If that's the correct formula for damage, then sea defense is crap compared to hull values. Am I reading that correctly?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Depending how you look at it!!!
Sea defence is actually reducing the chance of being hit by naval units.
That's why the biggest ship's have the lowest sea defence.
Hull mitigates the damage done.
Both are important. Sea defence can be developed by the engine tech. My explanation is that faster moving ships are harder to hit. Hull improvements (Armor tech) let you take more damage. Thicker armor lets you take more or powerfull hits.
So yeah, hull is the only factor to mitigate damage but is not being hit at all not better!!!
How naval damage dealing is done is something I read in the manual, btw.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Test setup: 1939 game start as UK. The British Home Fleet has 37 ships and an 80% stacking penalty. Sent the British "Home Fleet" to the Frisian Coast. Each list item below is a separate test for the month of September, 1939. Engagements with the Kreigsmarine were both SAG and SS only.
4% seems to be the lowest possible positioning. It is interesting that the 50% positioning bonus that Cunningham provided on that fleet created an average positioning of 18%. The 80% stacking malus is obviously highly potent, probably applying after the commander bonus.
It would help to test a fleet with no stacking malus to identify a baseline positioning value for the UK at this time period.
- Blagrovan (level 1). 80% stacking penalty. Eight engagements. Positioning was always 4%.
- Cunningham (level 5). 80% stacking penalty. Four engagements. Positioning values were 11%, 24%, 20%, 17%.
- Cunningham. Reduced the fleet to 15 ships with 33% penalty. Four engagements. Positioning values were 62.5%, 72.5%, 60.5%, 60.5%.
- Cunningham. Reduced the fleet to 8 ships with 4% penalty (Both carriers and Level 3 BB with 4 1938 CLs). Five engagements. 89%, 89%, 88%, 95%, 96%.
4% seems to be the lowest possible positioning. It is interesting that the 50% positioning bonus that Cunningham provided on that fleet created an average positioning of 18%. The 80% stacking malus is obviously highly potent, probably applying after the commander bonus.
It would help to test a fleet with no stacking malus to identify a baseline positioning value for the UK at this time period.
I did some basic testing for the UK in 1939.
I'm not sure if fleet composition or speed effects positioning, but in any event this is a basic fleet without penalty with a median position of 63.5% and a standard deviation of 8.9%.
* Note that highlighted cells indicate when my commander leveled up in skill.
I'm not sure if fleet composition or speed effects positioning, but in any event this is a basic fleet without penalty with a median position of 63.5% and a standard deviation of 8.9%.
* Note that highlighted cells indicate when my commander leveled up in skill.
Guess I was looking at numbers too long, LOL. I mixed some numbers up. I never researched the FC therefore multiplying with 1.1 always worked in my formula.
I am glad you discovered how it really worked.
You are absolutely right. After looking at my older test results it does show the value with a decimal. My latest test only had a fleet with no hull penalty
This is also my belief. It effects the FP in it's starting number. Thus effecting EFP and damage done to ship's.
A fleet his admiral acts like he has one skill level higher concerning positioning.
There are more uncertainties in Naval Combat. I think that somehow target choice decreases the chance of friendly fire, which happens when positioning values are too low.
Another thing is what is influences to get withinin gun's effective distance.
Last edited:
I really don't know if it's a base number. I guess there are to many variables (influences we don't know) to find the exact formula. Maybe a modder can help here to discover the variables.
Could starting FP be randomized within a certain range, depending on leader skill level? Are there any other game mechanics that use a randomized starting point.??
Let's say a starting roll!!
I'm sad to report that it looks like the equation for determining fleet positioning (FP) is fairly simple. I've spent way too much time these last two days researching it and here's what I've found.
Once you account for admiral skill and hull penalty (HP), the FP value seems to be a random roll between 40% and 59% - I've never seen an "unmodified" (remove HP and skill mods) FP value of anything else.
I've looked at weather, day/night, composition, and most importantly fleet size. Trust me, fleet size has nothing to do with it - the FP malus is all about the HP. I've checked fleets with 10 ships, 20 ships, 30 ships, 49, ships, 60 ships, and once you remove the HP and skill mods, what you're left with is a % somewhere between 40 and 59.
As reported before, it looks like 4% is the lowest FP value a fleet can have, so having a skill 5 admiral will guarantee an FP no lower than 10% (and that's with a max HP of 80%). The only thing I haven't looked into that comes to mind is speed - all the tests I did had at least 1 lvl1 BB, so I'm pretty sure my fleets were always chugging along at 18 kph.
Anyway that the short answer for now. I'd be happy to explain the methodology if anyone is interested, but it's too late right now for me to do so in a coherent manner...
So my latest stab at formulizing Positioning is this:
EP = [(RR + Admiral's skill - HP)+ DM]*FC
where RR is a random roll between .4 and .59
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.
And good work, guys.
Great work!
To be clear: DM stands for doctrine modifiers? FC stands for Fire Control?
Hmm. We can measure friendly fire if we hover over a ship in a round of combat, so it theory it could be counted and a hypothesis offered.
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.
Last edited:
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.
Think of positioning kind of like reinforcement chance for land combat, only that there is no hard front limit at seas.
The only problem with testing this, is the rarity with which friendly fire happens. In the 300 some-odd engagements I used, I only noticed it happening 3 or 4 times. Granted, I was only looking at the top 9 or 10 ships that were displayed on the screen since I was more interested in the FP number and icons just below it, so there could have been others going on that I was unaware of. To record an adequate set of data, I'm not sure how many engagements you would need; and then scrolling through each OOB on each side... it would be a very long, tedious, data gathering process. Cheers to anyone who chooses to undertake it, though!
Correct!
This is a major uncertainty, isn't it? Again, it would be difficult to gather data on such a relationship. I mean, how would you go about it in a comprehensive manner? You would need to gather the attack and defense efficiencies, as well as the EP of each ship on each side's OOB; during each round of combat note at which ship each ship was firing; then figure out damage sustained by each ship for each round of combat...
However, if someone wants to do it, or has an easier way of deriving the data, do not let my nay-saying deter!
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?
Yes
As stated in my previous previous post:
Positioning multiplied by Attack modifiers multiplied by Sea attack = Damage dealt to enemy.
(Damage dealt to enemy minus Sea defense) divided by the ships hull value is Actual Damage done to a ship each hour.
To my understanding this is how Naval combat damage dealing works.
As you can see, positioning does influence damage done to STR/ORG. I believe I got this information from the manual. It was never a point of discussion.
Is this not valid anymore????
This would also implicate that STR/ORG damage is proportional.
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
I think positioning influences the start roll for distances of ships in a naval battle. Then speed determines how vast they get witin their Gun's effective distance.
Ofcourse there are other modifiers at play too and much randomness indeed, such as lined out in defines.lua below:
NAVAL_COMBAT_ORG_DICE_SIZE = 1,
NAVAL_COMBAT_STR_DICE_SIZE = 10,
NAVAL_COMBAT_CRITICAL_HIT_DAMAGE_MUL = 10,
NAVAL_COMBAT_CRITICAL_HIT_DAMAGE_CHANCE = 10,
NAVAL_COMBAT_ORG_DAMAGE_MODIFIER = 1.0, -- Average damage is the same, but it will be more consistent with less randomness.
NAVAL_COMBAT_STR_DAMAGE_MODIFIER = 0.12, -- Average Strength damage is a bit higher and there will be much more randomness in it!
As you can see positioning is not a part of it (if it is it's invisible), and I do agree with your theory that which ship gets to fire probably is random, (but the chance based on positioning).
And my point was that once firing the average damage inflicted should be the exactly same, and not affected by positioning.
Last edited:
I think that your logic is sound. What I find interesting is that in limited testing, when the same fleet engages the same opponent with the same positioning value, the same damage is done. If positioning is different, damage taken is different. Now, that could certainly be an ancillary effect based on how often ships are firing, and I think your statement is a fair assumption to make at this point. A ship's ability to fire is based on distance to target, regulated by the effective distance of the guns involved. Thus, perhaps the question rephrased is: how does positioning effect the distance to target?
Option 1: We need to find for the base positioning value which would equal the effective distance of the guns of the ship in question. In other words, any ship with a positioning for base value X or higher will be in firing range.
Option 2: Positioning could be as simple as relating to a range chart: all ships that score positioning X are Y distance from target.
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.
Off course this makes a big difference and you are absolutely right.
Indeed we partly know. This is exactly why we should leave the formula as it is right now. Makes it easier for people anyway. I hope we find the exact RR range someday and the unseen modifiers.