About attack algorithm ,Coordination and Initative ,Is this right?

[sdplissken]

As said before, my argument was from the attacker point of view, because the "meta" situation, after the other thread, was 1x40w vs 4x10/2x20w, not viceversa. So, from the defender point of view, coord. (in this specific case) doesn't apply. In a more general case, yes, we have to take into account coord. also for the defender in almost the same way.
On your question, as always, it depends: in a 1x40w vs 4x10 case, infantry vs infantry, the attacker break is greater than the attack of one defender, so it will be always shielded. The defending side can do little damage, and will suffer more casualties.
Apologize me, but I don't understand the "Take GB" example, what example is?

The only point is that GBP specifically buffs breakthrough for infantry to even higher levels. This is a question, from observations in the game.... Are we sure that coordination does add attack values together? Meaning I have 2x20w, does that mean I know how say 63x2=126 SA instead of calculating individually 63 by itself twice? I am not sure that isn't exactly the case on the primary target. I have to look into this more.

 

[GC955]

The only point is that GBP specifically buffs breakthrough for infantry to even higher levels. This is a question, from observations in the game.... Are we sure that coordination does add attack values together? Meaning I have 2x20w, does that mean I know how say 63x2=126 SA instead of calculating individually 63 by itself twice? I am not sure that isn't exactly the case on the primary target. I have to look into this more.

GBP doesn't buff breakthrough only for infantry, this is true only for GBP-R, that hasn't coordination bonus; GBP-L buffs a +20% break for all divisions and has the unique bonus.
I don't understand your question: if you speak about the fact that coordination works separately or not, then I suppose that each 63 SA will be divided 60% first target+40% spread in the 40w "box"(example); we have to see if the "box" is the same for each division: if yes (e.g. 4x10w divisions), the best target is the same (so the first target gets 63*60%*2), otherwise (e.g. 8x10w divisions) it's not sure (because the "box" could contains different divisions").

 

[sdplissken]

I think it might be calculated differently when using coordination. Let's take a simple example I have 2 divisions each with 63 SA with 1 enemy with 75 Breakthrough.

Normally, your attacks will be blocked, but I think with coordination 2 * 63 = 126 SA is calculated against 75 Breakthrough but I'm not entirely sure on the numbers. Hence, 126 > 75, so many attacks can hit instead of 63 < 75 and again 63 < 75. I'm not entirely sure about how the coordination tactic.

*I could be wrong, I'm asking* I'm not altogether sure

 

[GC955]

I think it might be calculated differently when using coordination. Let's take a simple example I have 2 divisions each with 63 SA with 1 enemy with 75 Breakthrough.

Normally, your attacks will be blocked, but I think with coordination 2 * 63 = 126 SA is calculated against 75 Breakthrough but I'm not entirely sure on the numbers. Hence, 126 > 75, so many attacks can hit instead of 63 < 75 and again 63 < 75. I'm not entirely sure about how the coordination tactic.

*I could be wrong, I'm asking* I'm not altogether sure

Ok, now I understand your issue. As stated in the Dev Diary: "In combats with MULTIPLE divisional participants, each will build an array of targets up to and including their engagement width". Your example is 2 defenders vs 1 attacker: for the defenders there isn't the "array of targets", because the target is only one. So the old rules are still here: the 2 defenders add their SA (so 63*2) and attack. 126vs75: 13 attack vs 8 breakthrough. 5 attack won't be shielded, 8 will be shielded. And so long.

In a 2 vs 2 situation, instead, coordination is present: in the hypothesis of 2*20vs2*20 (always to have simple numbers) and split 60/40 (GBP-L in 1940), the 2 defenders will attack each attacker, but will split damage: 63*2*0.6=75.6 to the "best target", 63*2*0.4=50.4 equally divided (25.2 each). So the first attacker will get 75.6+25.2 100.8 attack against 75 break, the second one will get 25.2 attack against 75 break: hence, su 126 attack, 25 will be unshielded, 101 no, 79%. With the old system, you do 63 attack vs 75 break equally divided, 100% shielded. This is the difference with coordination now.

With 35% base, you have 63*2*0.35=44.1 to best target and 63*2*.65=82 equally divided. So the best target get 85 vs 75, 92% shielded.
With 45% from tech (1942), you have 63*2*0.45=57 to best target and 63*2*.55=69 equally divided. So the best target get 91 vs 75, 88% shielded. Note that this is the maximum for MW and SF-R.

 

[Corpse Fool]

With the old system, you do 63 attack vs 75 break equally divided, 100% shielded.

Except for when both formations picked the same target, which in a 2v2 would be 50% of the time.

An easy way to test this is to change the 10%/40% hit rates of defended and undefended into 0%/100%, and mod stats around and create a situation in which the defender taking damage means the attacks are being stacked beyond their defenses.

 

[GC955]

Except for when both formations picked the same target, which in a 2v2 would be 50% of the time.

Oh yes, of course, I only concentrate the issue on the 50% that they get distinct target to compare it with the new system. Considering all, in the old system you will have 80% of attack shielded, 20% no.