Might be due to the mod I use. There is an abundance of hit chance modifiers available with BICE. Plus, I vaguely remember the vanilla speed numbers are not really related to reality.
Ship armor test
- Thread starter sekelsenmat
- Start date
-
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.
Might be due to the mod I use. There is an abundance of hit chance modifiers available with BICE. Plus, I vaguely remember the vanilla speed numbers are not really related to reality.
You're forgetting the guns on other heavy cruisers, that's what Armour IV is for.
Actually found it.
1944 Light gun IV + both Ammo upgrades = Piercing 10.8
I missed because its not a tech i usually go for. But ammo upgrades does give a +5% piercing bonus each.
Heavy Cruisers even the HEavy gun I is enough to pierce 12 armor
.CA and CL both use the same light guns.
made a quick edit on the original topic.
Last edited:
Actually found it.
1944 Light gun IV + both Ammo upgrades = Piercing 10.8
I missed because its not a tech i usually go for. But ammo upgrades does give a +5% piercing bonus each.
Heavy Cruisers even the HEavy gun I is enough to pierce 12 armor
CA and CL both use the same light guns.
made a quick edit on the original topic.
How many cruisers will be using Heavy Gun IV vs III? Better armour is still better armour - it has an application. Whether it's worth it is another issue.
- 2
Don't forget admiral traits and stats (where every point in defense is 1% armor) plus nation wide modifiers.
Still, considering the 90% reduction is not achieved immediately above piercing, armor seems the higher the better -- if you are having it in a significant way at the first place.
Appreciate the maths, but it does seem you are heavily focusing on CL, which I specifically mention is a CA.
A CA well screened cannot be touched by light guns. I dont know why you need any sort of light armour for it.
Against heavy guns, I dont see how any armour can avoid being pierced. In that case, evading the heavy attack is the only way.
- 1
From reverse engineering the code. This is the calculation of
GunInfo._DamageReduction towards the end of CFEXMember::CalcGunInfo. Originally in patch 1.6 (graph of the original research), but I just verified it remains unchanged in 1.9.3.[/ICODE]- 4
- 1
It is a simple yes/no decision:
I added the formula for when piercing is lower than armor yesterday (https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Naval_battle#Armor_piercing).wiki said:
- 2
- 2
So according to bitmodes formula:
Armor 36 Vs piercing 31: -90% * (1 - 31/36) = -12.5% vs experimental value of -30%
Armor 2800 Vs piercing 31: -89% vs experimental value of -88%
I wonder why the 31 on 36 armor has such a huge difference. Could be RNG, but I did repeat the test a few times... I wonder if there is a large minimum reduction? Like at least -25%
Armor 36 Vs piercing 31: -90% * (1 - 31/36) = -12.5% vs experimental value of -30%
Armor 2800 Vs piercing 31: -89% vs experimental value of -88%
I wonder why the 31 on 36 armor has such a huge difference. Could be RNG, but I did repeat the test a few times... I wonder if there is a large minimum reduction? Like at least -25%
- 1
Both of these observed reductions also include the reduced crit chance from not being pierced when compared to the 0 and 20 armor tests.
If I'm not mistaken, a typical ship reliability with MtG is 64%. In the lower armor tests the crit chance is 2*10%*(100%-64%)=7.2% and crit bonus is 100%+(100%-64%)*500%=+280%. On average a 20.16% damage bonus. The high armor tests halve the crit chance, so this alone represents a damage reduction of 1-(1+0.2016/2)/(1+0.2016) = ~8.4%.
Combined with the armor reduction this would put the prediction for 36 armor at -20% and for 2800 armor at -90%.
Edit: fixed crit multiplier
Edit2: more mistakes fixed; I should really leave the calculations to the computer
Last edited:
- 4
- 1
Scenario - two patrol fleets encounter each other - each is composed of 6 CL and 2 CA (because both sides are apparently rolling in cash. One side has CA's with minimal armour and only one heavy battery per ship, the other has CA's with Armour IV and two heavy gun batteries plus DP secondaries. The CA's both receive a penalty to their heavy attack against the CL's but the CL's are under no such restriction against the CA's. So when the two go toe-to -oe the following will be (generally) true.
1. The group with the beefer CA's will be more likely to hit the enemy CA's and CL's (more batteries means better heavy attack).
2. The group with beefer CA's will be more likely to tank shots from the enemy CA's and proof against everything the CL's have except torps but will be less likely to evade incoming fire.
The question then becomes not only whether it's better for your CA's to evade incoming heavy fire or tank light fire but also how often you expect your 1944 CA to come up against another CA that can pierce it. Probably less than 50% of the time, unless you already killed all of the enemy's old CA's.
The whole idea of LA CA (which I am arguing for in post 19; ideally you want 4 Light Cruiser Battery & only 1 Heavy) is to melt enemy screens, which then allows your torpedo boats to fire at enemy capitals. Enemy screens cannot attack them with light attack, since they can only target the closest non-empty group (direct quote from wiki), and if they have 100% screening ratio (which is why I said well screened in post 26) torpedos cant touch the CA either.
They arent really designed to fight HA CA (or BB/BC for that matter) head on, without support from your other capitals. Reason being that heavy guns can attack the second layer, and assuming 1944 CA with armour IV you get 25 armour, which is pierced by at least Medium Battery II (27.5 piercing), they will deal a lot of damage to LA CA with or without armour. Which is the reason why I suggest no armour on it because they are not going to be as useful, but cost you in terms of IC and speed, which is crucial to evasion. So on that note I agree that LA CA with get mostly battered by your beefer CA on their own, but hopefully the enemy screens are already severely weakened before that and torpedos can do significant damage to enemy capitals already.
But this scenario is quite rare as well. If you have with any kind of capital ships given to you from the start you would doomstack them together, and those crappy capitals are bound to have higher visibility which means they are being mostly targeted first. So the beefer CA will target the crappy capitals first, which again support the idea that no armour is really needed in the LA CA.
If you are going to use them for patrol, then yea the LA CA will get sunk by HA CA (or your beefer CA for that matter). But the direct response would be to use LA CL because heavy attack is much less effective against screens compared to light attack. And the direct response against LA CL would be, well, LA CA. And the merry go round goes on and on.
- 2
I see. Thank you for sharing. Is there a file where you can see the code or do you have to decompile the game in some way?
This formula was on the wiki once (I calculated it many moons ago and had it up on https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Ship#Misc._stats ) - but it looks like someone decided to change it, bless (and with my notifications no longer working, I was never told, so had no idea - just one of the many reasons why I'm not a fan of using volunteer wikis as game guides - another being that currently there are two parts of the wiki that say different things about the same mechanic
- note, I'm not criticising the wiki volunteers more broadly, most are tops, but it's just a system that, more broadly, is designed to fail (if the desired result is to have a guide for players that reliably tells them how the game works). Thanks for sorting it out (again) bitmode - as always, love your work .- 1
- 1
Right, so essentially your LA CA is designed for one purpose - to kill screens. Mine is designed to survive longer than yours, to hunt subs, to hunt convoys and to hunt smaller surface ships. It is emphatically NOT designed to fight true cap ships, ever. It is, in essence, the biggest nastiest thing I can put in the water that isn't a Battle Cruiser.
- 1
Also, great working on doing some tests OP
. In case it helps for the future, when testing navy stuff, tweaking (temporarily - don't forget to change back ) things like the defines below (and particularly the first) can help (or entirely eliminate) the randomness factor, making it much easier to see what's going on:COMBAT_DAMAGE_RANDOMNESS = 0.3
COMBAT_MIN_HIT_CHANCE = 0.05
COMBAT_BASE_CRITICAL_CHANCE = 0.1
- 3
- 1
It would be great if there was, but right now the code needs to be decompiled.
The closest thing to a formula seemed to have been this diff? It still exists, it was just moved down to unverified stats and observations, probably because the surrounding text sounds more like advice than explanation. In any case by now I think it better fits into the naval battle page, which did not exist back then.
- 2
- 1
I remember being careful to include it as the formula (I linked to it in some forum posts, way back when). It's not important now (I had a look back through some of my edits and couldn't find it, but I could have annotated my edits better....), as it's back again, and I agree it goes better where it is now
.- 2
Speaking of wiki, this line always bugged me:
Does this mean that there's no point in having more than 200 NAVs per fleet? Are fighters capped the same way?
I removed the quoted section just now. There is no cap on carrier planes and most of the remaining points just sounded like someone wanted to vent about naval combat. Everything battle-related should be in https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Naval_battle.
- 3
- 2