Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Airframe techs: USELESS

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
zeekater

zeekater

General
17 Badges
Jun 20, 2005
1.999
44
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron 4: Arms Against Tyranny
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • 500k Club
  • Semper Fi
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
I don't know if this is common knowledge or not, but in FTM 3.05 'surface defense' doesn't influence bombing missions.

In my latest game as Germany the English placed a fleet of 70+ ships (all their BB, some CV, 20 CL, 20 DD, TP..) in la Palma (which they had taken from me).
I tried bombing them with 2 CAG or NAV, but my planes would lose all org and 30% strength.
So I changed the 'surface defence' of CAG and NAV to 3 times as much (15). Same result.
Changed it to 10 times as much (50). Same result.
Changed it to 1000 times as much, same result.

Then I changed the port strike efficiency from the tech tree to 100 instead of 0.05 per tech. Ingame it showed a defense and attack modifier of +43000% :cool:
The planes were still destroyed (the same amount), but they sank 10 ships in one run :laugh:

So, this leads us to the conclusion that surface defense isn't used ingame. Just like ground defensiveness and toughness used to be...
 
And have you duplicated the results with any other kind of bombing mission, e.g. strat, interdict or ground attack? The problem may not be that the stat is unimplemented, like defensiveness and toughness used to be, but rather that the port strike mission is bugged.
 
Could you possibly do a test with 5 enemy ships in a port and 2 cags? Then make the same changes to see if there is infact an improvement. I ask cause you are really using an outrageous example. The odds of running into that scenario in a game is slim to none.
 
Pro_Consul said:
And have you duplicated the results with any other kind of bombing mission, e.g. strat, interdict or ground attack? The problem may not be that the stat is unimplemented, like defensiveness and toughness used to be, but rather that the port strike mission is bugged.
Click to expand...

CplKatie said:
Could you possibly do a test with 5 enemy ships in a port and 2 cags? Then make the same changes to see if there is infact an improvement. I ask cause you are really using an outrageous example. The odds of running into that scenario in a game is slim to none.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm not on PI's payroll or anything :glare:
This situation happened ingame, and since normal bombing didn't work, I tried modding the stats to give me a fighting chance. That's how I found it out.
Naval bombing of regular sized fleets were also very damaging in the game (all org lost and some strength against anything bigger then SS), but I didn't pay much attention to it because I was busy in Russia.
 
Last edited:
1alexey said:
Ah as always. Why do you even think surface defence gives a 100% chance to avoid damage or 100% resist?
In fact it is non zero in both cases just without defence point it is bigger.

*sigh*
-here was a pun about manual.
Click to expand...

So, 5 points of surface defense gives a certain percentage of chance to miss attacks from the surface, X let's say. X gives you 30% strength loss and 100% org loss.
Now we increase the surface defense to 300 times as much. The chance to miss attacks is increased to 300 times X. 300 times X gives you 30% strength loss and 100% org loss.

Therefore, X = 0, ie, surface defense is not taking into account in the calculations for combat.
 
CplKatie said:
Could you possibly do a test with 5 enemy ships in a port and 2 cags? Then make the same changes to see if there is infact an improvement. I ask cause you are really using an outrageous example. The odds of running into that scenario in a game is slim to none.
Click to expand...

Happens all the time. US, Japan, UK all frequently end up with 50+ ship stacks.

CAGs would make the experiment less clean. If you're testing surface defense you don't want enemy air units around.
 
ajm317 said:
Happens all the time. US, Japan, UK all frequently end up with 50+ ship stacks.

CAGs would make the experiment less clean. If you're testing surface defense you don't want enemy air units around.
Click to expand...

Must be that you two have similar passive naval strategies. I typically trap and hunt down fleets before they can retreat to port. The super stacks are very rare in my games.
 
zeekater said:
So, 5 points of surface defense gives a certain percentage of chance to miss attacks from the surface, X let's say. X gives you 30% strength loss and 100% org loss.
Now we increase the surface defense to 300 times as much. The chance to miss attacks is increased to 300 times X. 300 times X gives you 30% strength loss and 100% org loss.

Therefore, X = 0, ie, surface defense is not taking into account in the calculations for combat.
Click to expand...
No. Atacker fires on unit as many times as it has attack rating.
IF defender has a defence point(each time it is attacked 1 defence point is taken away) left the chance of getting hit is X1, otherwise X2.

So no meeter how large defence rating you have you still can get damaged at every attack with chance X1.

Afaik X1=0.2, X2=0.4.
 
CplKatie said:
Must be that you two have similar passive naval strategies. I typically trap and hunt down fleets before they can retreat to port. The super stacks are very rare in my games.
Click to expand...

You don't have the ships as Germany early in the game to be that aggressive against the Royal Navy.

Regardless, I tried bombing a smaller fleet and the results were the same, only the damage was lower. 5 surface defense gave 5% strength damage, 1500 surface defense gave 5% strength damage.
 
1alexey said:
No. Atacker fires on unit as many times as it has attack rating.
IF defender has a defence point(each time it is attacked 1 defence point is taken away) left the chance of getting hit is X1, otherwise X2.

So no meeter how large defence rating you have you still can get damaged at every attack with chance X1.

Afaik X1=0.2, X2=0.4.
Click to expand...

The damage sustained was the same when only X1 was used (high surface defense, always X1), as when X2 was also used (low surface defense).
 
zeekater said:
Hey, I'm not on PI's payroll or anything :glare:
Click to expand...

I'm not demanding anything. Just pointing out that your test is insufficient to prove the conclusion you have drawn, and that therefore you might be barking up the wrong tree on the surface defense thing. Also, as others have pointed out, the testing scenario is too stilted to draw good data from it. Again, not demanding that you start a new game to test it with a better scenario; just pointing out that the testing you HAVE done is not conclusive enough to really pin down the problem, or even establish for sure that there IS a problem.
 
Pro_Consul said:
I'm not demanding anything. Just pointing out that your test is insufficient to prove the conclusion you have drawn, and that therefore you might be barking up the wrong tree on the surface defense thing. Also, as others have pointed out, the testing scenario is too stilted to draw good data from it. Again, not demanding that you start a new game to test it with a better scenario; just pointing out that the testing you HAVE done is not conclusive enough to really pin down the problem, or even establish for sure that there IS a problem.
Click to expand...

Good point :)

I've tried setting the surface defense at 0, results were the same. So what the surface defense is, doesn't seem to matter. 0, low, high, extremely high, damage was always the same.
 
CplKatie said:
Must be that you two have similar passive naval strategies. I typically trap and hunt down fleets before they can retreat to port. The super stacks are very rare in my games.
Click to expand...

Nobody cares about your 1337 gaming skills.

There have been several posts on the forum about the issue. For example here:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?570610-vs-USA-super-fleet

So at the very least this is a situation that commonly occurs for players in the HOI3 gaming population at large.

In regards to the test in question it would be nice to see some screen shots or something. If in fact there is no difference in damage for a variety of mission types for a variety of surface defense numbers then surface defense is clearly bugged. Even if it only affects chance to hit increasing it should result in, you know, less hits.

Even if it is having some subtle effect if setting it to 5000 has no substantial effect on gameplay then there is no point researching the techs, but I agree the test here is not sufficient to make that determination yet.
 
zeekater said:
I've tried setting the surface defense at 0, results were the same. So what the surface defense is, doesn't seem to matter. 0, low, high, extremely high, damage was always the same.
Click to expand...

But that could simply be the fact that no matter how high the defense rating, there always remains at least a small chance of being hit; and with even a small chance of being hit, and with only two targets to even shoot at, 70+ ships are ALWAYS going to completely deorg and severely damage the planes. As for the 30% damage, have you considered that might just be a threshhold number, and that in fact much more damage is being calculated except that the game is enforcing a ceiling on single mission casualties or some such? Like I said, there are other possible explanations, and that one stilted test is not enough to rule them out and settle on one specific stat as the cause of the behavior you are seeing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back