Hello all,
This may come off as strange for a long time player, but I encountered a problem 'reading' the attack values of units.
Let me explain.
Just now I attacked 2 rockets & 1 nuke rocket on the ground with a direct attack from lvl 7 (yes, the elite version) tac aircraft, 4 units. What was killed? 1 rocket and the other 2 were damaged at 50%.
So I thought, fine, random X factor, Ill hit again with 5 fresh ones. 1 rocket killed, nuke down to 10%. All tacs were at 100%
So my multilayered questions are
What do the attack values mean, exactly? lvl 7 tacs do 13 against inf, 7 against armor (trucks are infantry...right?). By assumption 1 attack value point equals 1 HP, even with the worst of the worst random factor (since 28 is the assumed output, with the 20% or so random factor), the 3 rockets should have been wiped instantly at the first strike
And what if 1 attack point doesnt equal 1 HP damage (taking into account random factor)? What does it equate with then? Chance? HP divided by X? 13 or 7 tomatoes?
I also have noticed, especially at lower levels, that the chance to 'miss' entirely is a lot higher. As if there are certain 'increments' in how much damage is done (my assumption its based on 0,5 HP per 'chance').
TL;DR
- What do the unit damage output numbers mean?
- How does the damage calculation work?
Please log in to post a reply.
Remember, rockets are in the "aircraft" armor class, unless they are moving as a ground or sea convoy and then they are "infantry" armor class. Fighters are actually more effective against rockets than tactical bombers, unless the rockets are moving in convoy mode.
Conventional rockets only have five hit points, and nuclear rockets only have 10, so two attacking L6+ fighter wings of 5-squadrons each should make short work of them.
hmm, I think that indeed explains a lot. Thanks a bunch. I have read it elsewhere, but clearly, I forgot it.
Still leaves my other question
I have always assumed that the so-called "x-factor" is simply variation around the mean. If we further assume a standard normal distribution of all possible damage inflicted relative to the mean, then something like 95 or 96% of all damage outcomes should be within two standard deviations of the mean. This is consistent with my own anecdotally observed airstrike results, but I have never even tried to make an actual mathematical/statistical study of those results.miech wrote:
Still leaves my other question
That said, I don't pretend to be an expert. Our recognized numbers theoritician is @DxC, and our empirical results expert is @Restrisiko. I've pinged them to this thread, and we'll see what they have to say.
As for your own anecdotal observation that lower attack strengths tend to yield more zero damage outcomes, to my way of thinking, that makes a lot of sense, since the zero-damage outcome is probably within two standard deviations of the mean when your attack strength is only 1, 2 or 3.
Personally, I hate results like you've described, and I always try to maximize my airstrike results with SBDE-optimized stacks of five tactical bomber squadrons each, allowing of course for mixed stacks of fighters, TBs and other aircraft as necessary for spreading damage among different unit types when they are expected to encounter a lot of defending enemy aircraft or anti-aircraft groundfire.
You could attempt to read the armor classes or, you could just hit the nukes with everything you have..
the armor class of trucks is unclear (well, to me at least). Montana reminded me about the rockets being air units when they are 'standing still on an airfield'. Regarding your comment about 'sending enough'. Try do that with an opponent who is basically online 24/7 and actually started to copy and learn from me in regard to battle tactics (read: sending rockets at refueling planes). Fortunately said opponent still usually attacks like a noob with his planes, and therefore he will be beaten eventually. But thats another story, but just had to show a bit of frustration, as he drags on the battle longer than needed, by pestering me with 'fire and forget' fast stacks.
@MontanaBB @Diabolical should be added as well.
You have a point regarding the 2 standard deviations, thats my observation as well. Ive recently experienced the EXTREMELY rare situation that a 100% LT on a plains province still had a revolt (and of course, the tank wasnt killed *sigh*). Less than 1% chance? or even 0,1%?
I have absolut no idea of it, because I have never really dealt closer with calculation of the combat values; only with the different damage classes and their best control / interaction - as you say, the expert for combat values is DxC.MontanaBB wrote:
@Restrisiko.
But I just know that one can not simply say for example an attack value of 3 destroys 3 HP.
That couldn't be right anyway, considering that e.g. the target can be an unit with 5 or one with 30 HP, therefore at least it somehow must be converted as percentage, but how exactly I don't know 
(and I also don't really want to know - irrelevant for my way of playing 
).
I think, enlightenment can bring DxC; or otherwise maybe Chuck Norris.. 
To avoid a revolt with 99% certainty at newly captured 25% province morale, the magic number is "7"---- seven total strength points of the garrison unit(s) will almost always prevent a province rebellion. Note that unit strength points vary by terrain, and usually one mid-level conventional infantry, light tank or armored car unit is not enough. Strangely though, one conventional mid-level and above AA unit usually is, because the strength points for rebellion purposes use the AA unit's AA strength value, not its ground attack strength value. Also don't make the mistake of using single armor units to garrison newly captured city or mountain provinces, because the strength of the armor units is reduced by 50 and 25%, respectively, in those terrains. Nothing more aggravating than having your shiny new 100% condition medium tank brigade join the rebellion and then have to kill it yourself.miech wrote:
Ive recently experienced the EXTREMELY rare situation that a 100% LT on a plains province still had a revolt (and of course, the tank wasnt killed *sigh*).
That is annoying when your enemy copies your tactics, and can outdo you with them.miech wrote:
Try do that with an opponent who is basically online 24/7 and actually started to copy and learn from me in regard to battle tactics
Regarding revolts. The probability that a province will revolt is available. If you select the little "i" button next to the province morale bar you get a box that lists:
'morale
morale trend (rising, falling, or stable)
Army strength (of armies in the province center)
Chance of an uprising (%)
And all the factors influencing morale.
So you can see what the effect is of having one or two units in that province. A stronger army will decrease the chance of uprising.
I only worry about uprisings for particularly valuable provinces.
Thanks, I was aware of it though. I wonder whether revolts álso have a (hidden) X factor.
Perhaps a bit of info back (tit for tat) - did you know that revolts rarely (if ever) happen if the province is enclosed by your other lands? Morale plays no factor at all. The only instances I have seen it happen, is with countries with serious resource shortages (usually abandoned AI countries hurting in grain)
Less likely, perhaps, but I would not rely on that theory for an important newly captured province that you need to keep. I have witnessed the rebellion of a fully enclosed province of one of my allies in the last 72 hours, and I have experienced it myself in the past. Moreover, certain provinces are more prone to rebellion when newly captured, in particular those that have a higher than average number of other provinces that border on them. When a province has 6, 7 or 8 bordering provinces, all of which are either newly captured provinces or enemy provinces, each of those bordering provinces contributes -5 morale points to your newly captured province, and it does not matter whether they are enemy provinces or newly captured provinces at 25% morale themselves. There are a number of double resource provinces ---- oil, food or metals ---- on the various maps that have 7 to 9 bordering provinces. These appear to be intentionally designed morale/rebellion traps for players who are unaware of the morale/rebellion dynamics. When newly captured and until they are safely stabilized above 30% morale, these provinces always need to be garrisoned with units with 7+ strength points on the particular terrain.miech wrote:
did you know that revolts rarely (if ever) happen if the province is enclosed by your other lands? Morale plays no factor at all.
Ah, that part is new for me - in regard to the 'crowded' provinces. I admit I rarely pay attention to that, as indeed the 30% rule is holy for me, seconded by my theory regarding enclosed provinces.
Yet, I do admit that in CoW its not as bread and butter as it was back in S1914. They do happen, though its very very rare. At least in my experience.
Yet we digress.
This topic is about the unit values. Basically my primary question has been answered, though I am still unsure what they mean in terms of causal terms (1 attack is 1 HP, ignoring X factor for arguments sake?)
OK, you brought me in on an earlier post and I'll get to that in a moment. But first, I have seen many times a fully enclosed province rebel back to the former owner or, to a third party whose center of gravity (morale-speaking) is stronger relative to my own. Just as gravity increases or decreases in strength proportionally to the distance from the center of two objects by a factor of four, so too does the rebellion influence seem to focus "new" ownership to the closest center of morale.miech wrote:
Thanks, I was aware of it though. I wonder whether revolts álso have a (hidden) X factor.Perhaps a bit of info back (tit for tat) - did you know that revolts rarely (if ever) happen if the province is enclosed by your other lands? Morale plays no factor at all. The only instances I have seen it happen, is with countries with serious resource shortages (usually abandoned AI countries hurting in grain)
A vast empire with great morale can have terrible morale at it's far flung edges while a little NPC nation nearby has average morale, yet because it's "pull" on the province in question is stronger, it should have a greater draw of a rebel province to itself. This is like when the gravitational pull of the moon is stronger than that of the earth if you are very close to the moon.
Unfortunately, though this makes sense, I've not fully vetted the idea and I'd have to deliberately allow provinces to go into rebellion multiple times just to test the theory. Unfortunately, the chance that a rebellion even occurring is a separate factor and so testing this theory is fairly difficult.
Oddly, this theory seemed even more true when playing on a non-wrapping (east/west) map where a low morale province would rebel to a nation on the opposite edge of the map when there are other candidate nations much closer. I think this is because the other map edge was wrapping it's center of gravity morale-pull to my edge. Supposedly, the dev team may have fixed this issue by cutting off the wrapping effect, but even if they did, the theory is still fairly sound and deserves more testing to confirm.
Or....@Freezy could simply confirm or deny it right here.
Anyway, the surrounding/enclosing factor seems less relevant if not irrelevant except that the draw of morale might be affected by that....assuming that my theory is true.
~0~
Now, back to the other issue. The simple fact of the matter, concerning damage variance, is that the X factor is a random fractional number from 0 to 1 and it only counts as a multiplier against the damage dealt. If the damage calculated is supposed to be a "9", but the X factor for that round of combat comes to 0.4, then the damage dealt will be at most 9 x 0.4 = 3.6 actual damage. Then, of course, that damage is reduced by fortress values and divvied up proportionally among the recipients.
Because that X factor can be "0", the actual damage done can also be "0" (i.e., 0.0 x 9.0 = 0.0) so the unit simply "missed". And, it's possible that the damage dealt is too small to matter, so it makes it seem like a unit is having no effect when it's just that its effect is too small to calculate (i.e., perhaps the X factor is "0.00444" so 0.00444 x 9.0 = 0.04 which is rounded down to 0.0).
Because the X factor is a multiplier from 0 to 1, it can't increase the damage done beyond the maximum possible damage. However, it usually lowers the maximum possible damage unless the X factor equals "1.0".
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.Please log in to post a reply.
