AA combat formula - Page 2

steven8r · January 15, 2004, 13:35

Ok, perhaps a stupid question, but I'll ask nonetheless:

What about AA units outside of a city?

Say you put your 4 units w/in the city and then put stacks of 4 in the tiles surrounding the city. When the Bomber flys over, does it just count the AA in the 'target' location, or is the whole 'flightpath' considered?

Just currious. (and I'd hate for Alexman (and others) to think he had nothing more to do)

Steven

swat-spas2 · January 15, 2004, 14:20

I don't think this is how it works, at least I've played alot of modern combat games and never seen it work that way. Fighters intercept in a range, but AA units don't have a range. I would assume they only engage in combat in the one square. Technically, you could think of it as they evaded the flak zone on the way in? So what if you mod AA units with a range factor or ZOC? Actually you don't have to... AEGIS already has both of these and it doesn't seem to do anything. You seem to have to be physically in the square you wish to protect in order to do the shoot downs. Which is fine by me. It means if you really want a network of AA, you put some fighter coverage there or nearby too. More strategy this way. If somebody tests it more throughly and says otherwise, fine and good. But it would seem like a tremendous waste to me. You already get to pot shot each bomber on the square. That should do.

This 1/10 makes sense. Its sorta working like Axis & Allies as far as shooting down raids (not quite similar odds-- 1/6, to about 1/11, but you could mod it so it works better). Obviously the math changes when you get better bombers or better/more AA.

Cookie Monster · January 15, 2004, 16:25

Quote:

Originally posted by steven8r
Ok, perhaps a stupid question, but I'll ask nonetheless:

What about AA units outside of a city?

Say you put your 4 units w/in the city and then put stacks of 4 in the tiles surrounding the city. When the Bomber flys over, does it just count the AA in the 'target' location, or is the whole 'flightpath' considered?

Just currious. (and I'd hate for Alexman (and others) to think he had nothing more to do)

Steven

Good question steven8r. I sure hope that this is the way it works. If a bomb run's path crosses over AA batteries on the way to the target there is a chance of taking losses. This is how it is in real life anyway. I'll have to experiment in my current game.

steven8r · January 15, 2004, 17:54

Well, if AA units surrounding a city can't actually do anything to protect it (gamewise anyway) I suppose that they would keep the Bombers from having a 'free run' at any nearby improvements.

For example, plant 4 AA units atop your Rubber resource to at least have a chance to keep the Bombers from severing it.

So even if AA units only protect the targeted square, I suppose there are some squares other than cities worth protecting.

Steven

Jaybe · January 15, 2004, 19:46

Quote:

For example, plant 4 AA units atop your Rubber resource to at least have a chance to keep the Bombers from severing it.

Sounds like an excellent idea.

Quote:

So even if AA units only protect the targeted square, I suppose there are some squares other than cities worth protecting.

Fighters on AS (intercept) also works well, especially with their extended range in C3C.

MrWhereItsAt · January 15, 2004, 22:13

But you could just shove a number of ANY units on the rubber resource, and the Bombers would have to get through all their hp before getting to the roads etc underneath. Since your units heal as they are in your territory, any added bonus from an AA shooting down a Bomber would be secondary to your main aim.

Xorbon · January 17, 2004, 00:20

Before my rant/idea, I want to say

to Alexman for figuring out the AA formula.

So, assuming I understand this correctly, stealth aircraft are treated the same as every other type of aircraft with respect to AA calculations? To make up for that, the Conquests version of the stealth planes have pumped-up defense values so that they won't get shot down as easily by AA. This has the side effect of making it even more difficult for intercepting fighters to shoot them down. I don't know why the designers didn't do something a little more creative. They could have given aircraft with stealth ability a defensive bonus (say x3 or x4) for going against AA units. That way, by giving the two stealth units defensive values of 2 or 3, they could more easily be shot down by intercepting fighters, while still being more difficult to get shot down by AA.

Kuciwalker · January 17, 2004, 00:29

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
No effect, but stealth units have a higher defense than bombers, so they are shot down less often.

Umm... I thought Stealth units had ZERO A/D.

Kuciwalker · January 17, 2004, 00:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Xorbon
Before my rant/idea, I want to say

to Alexman for figuring out the AA formula.

So, assuming I understand this correctly, stealth aircraft are treated the same as every other type of aircraft with respect to AA calculations? To make up for that, the Conquests version of the stealth planes have pumped-up defense values so that they won't get shot down as easily by AA. This has the side effect of making it even more difficult for intercepting fighters to shoot them down. I don't know why the designers didn't do something a little more creative. They could have given aircraft with stealth ability a defensive bonus (say x3 or x4) for going against AA units. That way, by giving the two stealth units defensive values of 2 or 3, they could more easily be shot down by intercepting fighters, while still being more difficult to get shot down by AA.

If in C3C they have given Stealth units a defense value, it would probably be better to just return it to zero (so if a plane intercepts the Stealth plane dies) and multiply the interception chance of the AA by the Stealth interception chance. Thus, AA would still be useful against Stealth, but a lot less.

Xorbon · January 18, 2004, 01:58

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
If in C3C they have given Stealth units a defense value, it would probably be better to just return it to zero (so if a plane intercepts the Stealth plane dies) and multiply the interception chance of the AA by the Stealth interception chance. Thus, AA would still be useful against Stealth, but a lot less.

As the game currently stands, AA doesn't make a roll to see if it 'intercepts' incoming aircraft (if I'm understanding Alexman's explanation). So, the stealth-flag isn't used by AA to determine probability of hitting a plane. The above idea from Skywalker to have AA 'intercept' planes (like a fighter) could work.

Another idea I had thought of before was to introduce a new stat for air units: surface-to-air defense (or evasion, or whatever you want to call it). The air defense of the AA unit would then be compared to the air unit's surface-to-air defense to determine whether or not the AA is successful. That way, you could have an air unit's defense vs. fighters be different than its defense vs. AA.

Jaybe · January 21, 2004, 16:51

Quote:

Originally posted by BomberEscort
I am currently working on the Anti-Air craft algorithm for my Combat Calculator, and the experience of the AA units and the experience of the bomber does effect the percentage at which the AA unit shoots down the bomber.

The greater the difference in favor of the bomber the less the chance of the flak hitting its target... But as usual, when it does hit, the bomber is destroyed.

The above quote is post #10 at CFC > Civ3 - Conquests > Experience levels for air units?

Is it possible that hitpoint difference can affect results??

alexman · January 21, 2004, 17:54

No, hit points had no effect in my tests.
After about 1000 trials of regular bombers against an elite flak, the number of bombers lost were within 0.08% of the above formula.

Jaybe · January 21, 2004, 18:08

Quote:

No, hit points had no effect in my tests.

Whew! I am relieved (though it would also have been nice if they had).

Thanx.

Kuciwalker · January 21, 2004, 19:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Xorbon
As the game currently stands, AA doesn't make a roll to see if it 'intercepts' incoming aircraft (if I'm understanding Alexman's explanation). So, the stealth-flag isn't used by AA to determine probability of hitting a plane. The above idea from Skywalker to have AA 'intercept' planes (like a fighter) could work.

The AA in effect does intercept planes, it's just they always die when it does

but to be more precise I meant that the A/(A+D) value would be multiplied by the Stealth interception chance. Thus, all stealth units would have a 5% chance of dying to an AA, because (in my solution) D = 0 and A/(A+0) = 1.

Quote:

Another idea I had thought of before was to introduce a new stat for air units: surface-to-air defense (or evasion, or whatever you want to call it). The air defense of the AA unit would then be compared to the air unit's surface-to-air defense to determine whether or not the AA is successful. That way, you could have an air unit's defense vs. fighters be different than its defense vs. AA.

I'm wary of adding yet another unit stat.

player1 · June 7, 2004, 15:16

Bump!

How about a SAM Missile Battery formula?
And does it depend from interception rate?

I did some tests, but I'm still not sure.

alexman · June 7, 2004, 16:38

The SAM battery works like this:

For each bomber, there is a chance equal to the interception chance for the SAM to fire (50% against conventional, 5% against stealth)
If the SAM doesn't fire, the bomber continues as if the SAM were not present. This includes the chance of getting shot down by AA fire.
If the SAM fires, it has a A/(A+D) probability to shoot down the plane (A=8 for the SAM, D=2 for the Bomber). If the plane is not shot down, the Bomber survives, but it loses its chance to do any damage as well.

player1 · June 7, 2004, 17:46

By the way, does this mean that in PtW SAM batteries were better against Stealth unit, since they had no defenses?

EDIT:
Slightly better since there is still high 95% chance to not shoot at all.

alexman · June 7, 2004, 18:17

I didn't test PTW, but I imagine so, yes.

player1 · June 8, 2004, 02:15

Hmm...

[thinking loudly]
Some sort of balance problem (Mobile SAM better then SAM Battery when fighting stealth).
[/thinking loudly]

Panag · June 8, 2004, 11:16

Quote:

Originally posted by player1
Hmm...

[thinking loudly]
Some sort of balance problem (Mobile SAM better then SAM Battery when fighting stealth).
[/thinking loudly]

hi ,

yes and no , .... it depends , ......

well maybe the think of mobile as more modern SAM'S , ....

have a nice day

player1 · June 8, 2004, 12:12

And both gained with same tech?

planetfall · June 8, 2004, 12:37

What about both? If have both mobile SAMS and SAM battery, do we get 2 opportunities: 1 with mobile SAMS and 1 with SAM battery, or are all aggregated and we only get one SAM defensive opportunity?

PF

alexman · June 8, 2004, 13:35

As I posted above, if the SAM doesn't fire, the bomber continues as if the SAM were not present. This includes the chance of getting shot down by AA fire. If the SAM fires and the plane is not shot down, the Bomber survives, but the mission is aborted so it loses its chance to do any damage as well.

planetfall · June 8, 2004, 13:55

Interesting, so I can use both SAMs and AA for towns that are being hit hard.

player1 · June 8, 2004, 14:46

Single Flak chance to take out Stl. Bomber:
0.2/(5+0.2)=3,8%

SAM Battery chance to take out Stl. Bomber:
8/(8+5)*0.05=3,1%

Compared to:
Single Flak chance to take out Bomber:
0.2/(2+0.2)=9,1%

SAM Battery chance to take out Bomber:
8/(8+2)*0.5=40%

A drastic shift in usefulness of land AA units compared to SAM sites.

Of course, combo is the best, but combo won't really help AI, which rarely uses AA units (Flak and Mobile SAMs).

EDIT:
Fixed some errors.

Mad Bomber · June 11, 2004, 18:17

Alexman:

it seems to me that flak units are subject to interception chances, otherwise the percentabes are higher than what I have experienced during game play.

Player1:

The AI uses SAM batteries in all of the games that I play, esp. If I have a large airforce.

player1 · June 11, 2004, 18:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
The AI uses SAM batteries in all of the games that I play, esp. If I have a large airforce.

That's the point.
AI mostly uses Sam batteries or Fighters, which can be easily avoided with stealth units. While rarely buidling AA units such as Flak or Mob. SAMs, which are much better in taking out stealth aircraft.

alexman · June 11, 2004, 19:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
it seems to me that flak units are subject to interception chances, otherwise the percentabes are higher than what I have experienced during game play.

The AA formula I gave in the first post is confirmed by literally thousands of tests. So unless you have the data to back up your comment above, I don't believe you.

player1 · June 11, 2004, 19:52

AA has nothing to do with interception chance.
For testing I just put it at 0% for all planes, and AA units worked normally against them.

Mad Bomber · June 11, 2004, 23:51

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman

The AA formula I gave in the first post is confirmed by literally thousands of tests. So unless you have the data to back up your comment above, I don't believe you.

I admit that I haven't done any tests, but I have played the WWII conquests many times. Even with three flak units in Manila, The Japanese do not seem to suffer more than about a 20% loss rate per unit attacking.

It could be that I am having bad luck, but with litterally hundreds of attacks experienced, I might need to get a 4-leaf clover or a rabbits foot.