[ADV] Advanced Play System - Questions & Commentary

[Radoye]

I believe - but don't take this to the bank, been a long time i looked at this in detail re: PGF - and this is how it was in PacGen too, both submarine and destroyer classes attack against CD. In PacGen destroyers even attack against ground units CD (which IMO is a bug)! This was to depict a difference between ships that mainly use guns vs those that mainly use torpedoes as their main offensive weapon.

I never actually put in the time and effort needed to learn the PGF insides to the degree you and our friend HexCode did, i just assumed that things worked the same way as they always were in the SSI world. But the research the two of you have put in has proved on many a occasion that this is not true. So maybe it is time that i should start seriously paying attention!

[Lettos]

I believe - but don't take this to the bank, been a long time i looked at this in detail re: PGF - and this is how it was in PacGen too, both submarine and destroyer classes attack against CD. In PacGen destroyers even attack against ground units CD (which IMO is a bug)! This was to depict a difference between ships that mainly use guns vs those that mainly use torpedoes as their main offensive weapon.

I never actually put in the time and effort needed to learn the PGF insides to the degree you and our friend HexCode did, i just assumed that things worked the same way as they always were in the SSI world. But the research the two of you have put in has proved on many a occasion that this is not true. So maybe it is time that i should start seriously paying attention!

Logically speaking, a submarine in the PGF model has only two enemies, Destroyer and Aircraft. Accordingly, only two defense parameters are sufficient. One parameter is against attack from the sky, the other is applied against destroyer.

The third parameter would come in handy if the Destroyer vs Submarine combat model was more complex. For example, if Submarine attacks Destroyer, its Ground Defense is used. But if Destroyer attacks Submarine, Submarine uses Close Defense. But Close Defense will be greater than Ground Defense - because the Submarine, when attacked, behaves very cunningly and very quietly. So what parameter should I use if the Submarine is surrounded by Destroyers? Not GD, not CD... another Defense parameter? Isn't it too complicated?

Submarine vs Submarine attack cases I would not consider. They are very complicated when it comes to submarine attacks. And if the attacked submarine is in a surface position, the problem is already solved with Dual-Submarine units (c) by Radoye.

I think that the programmer decided not to complicate the process here, and used one defense parameter - GD.

[Lettos]

The parameter table is gradually taking on a finished look. The work is progressing!

-----------------------NA--GD--INI---CD/ASW------EXP Level---STR(Player)-----STR(AI)
Battleship----------20---8----6---------9----------900--------------11--------------13
Heavy Cruiser-----17---5----5---------7----------700---------------13-------------14
Light Cruiser------15----4----4---------2---------600---------------12-------------14
Destroyer----------13----3----3---------6---------500---------------12-------------14
Submarine---------12----0----1-----N/A(Any)---500---------------12-------------12

Now a bit about Sea Transport destruction by warships. Philosophy - I wouldn't want to see a transport ship on the battlefield that repeatedly survives Capital Ships or Destroyer hits.

The parameter GD = -8 (minus eight) allows to achieve such results if the transport has STR=12 EXP=200:

Battleship or Heavy Cruiser attack -> survived Sea Transport STR=1-2. Occasionally, total destruction in a single hit occurs.
Light Cruiser or Destroyer attack - > survived Sea Transport STR = 3-4.
Emulates the situation that lighter ships still take longer to destroy a transport.
Guaranteed total destruction in this model can be achieved by giving the transport a GD= - "many".
But, in my opinion, it is better to make the parameter so that the difference in attack of different types of ships can be seen.

[Lettos]

Let's add Sea Transport to the table

-----------------------NA----GD--INI---CD/ASW------EXP Level---STR(Player)-----STR(AI)
Battleship----------20-----8----6---------9----------900--------------11--------------13
Heavy Cruiser-----17-----5----5---------7----------700---------------13-------------14
Light Cruiser------15------4----4---------2---------600---------------12-------------14
Destroyer----------13------3----3---------6---------500---------------12-------------14
Submarine---------12------0----1-----N/A(Any)---500---------------12-------------12
Sea Transport-----01--- "-8" --1---"0 up to -5"---N/A--------------N/A-----------N/A

Courageous, Ark Royal, Shokaku, Zuikaku, Taiho, Sinano... escort air carriers Audacity, Eagle, Taiyo, Unyo, Chuyo, Unryu... the torpedoes did their job.
Glorious seems to be the only example from WW2 of two powerful Capital Ships finishing off a large aircraft carrier in a short time.
After reading these tragic stories I didn't get the impression that the aircraft carrier had combat survivability.

If you define the philosophical-technical principle of "what is an aircraft carrier", then adjusting the parameters is a very simple task.

An aircraft carrier is either 1) something like a battleship, but with a runway deck, or it is 2) a floating parking lot for dangerous vehicles, and in addition, this parking lot houses a fuel depot, a refueling station, and somewhere very close by a lot of explosive objects. And in addition, the center of gravity is strongly shifted upwards, which leads to very big dangers from a small list of the ship.
The sinking of Sinano (dead weight 70000 tons!) provides a telling example of the fate of a torpedoed aircraft carrier with no planes, no fuel supplies for the aircraft, no bombs or torpedoes. Empty ship. Very modern for 1944, very good armored and very safe. Actually not!

I view an aircraft carrier as 2) - a floating parking lot-hazardous storage facility.

A submarine kills an aircraft carrier if it gets to it, and if it hits (this factor is not in the PGF model).
Battleship, Battle Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, and even Light Cruiser will finish off an aircraft carrier in a couple hits (in PGF terms). Some with powerful artillery, some with weaker artillery but + torpedoes (this factor is also absent in PGF).

The aircraft carrier's own armament is used for air defense purposes. At sea, an aircraft carrier is roughly equal to a weak destroyer in terms of its guns. And even so, a destroyer has torpedoes...
Conditionally, I assumed for modeling that the aircraft carrier is a definite EASY prey for all but the destroyer. A destroyer attack has more unpredictability. Sometimes the aircraft carrier will even Brake off the attack, but more often it will suffer losses.

Parameters of certain average Air Carrier (dead weight 20-30000 tons) are:
EXP=500 STR=10(yes, now only 10 and not 11-12-13-14!):
NA = 12, GD = 2, CD/ASW = -4 (minus four),
INI = 3 (for now is ok but needs to be tested in anti-aircraft actions)

[HexCode]

TEMPORARY APPEARANCE...

Intended Audience: # Lettos # & # Radoye #

For the purposes of THIS post, it's assumed that SFP / FP values are NON-NEGATIVE while LFC values are NEGATIVE.

This is a case of "Algebraic Overcapacitation".

Relevant Play System Feature Description

1) There're no obvious restrictions as to the absolute values of negative LFC values.

2) A unit which enters a scenario with a POSITIVE SFP value is able to move in-game until its FP status turns ZERO (0).

3) In-game, as long as a unit's FP status remains positive, Resupply Only CANNOT be invoked. Wow !

4) In-game, resupply by means of Replacements Procurement automatically wipes out all its positive FPs and resets its FP value to the unit's (negative) LFC value, thereby irretrievably immobilizing the unit !

5) In-game, a unit Upgrade (Auto-Upgrade as well) automatically wipes out all its positive FPs and resets its FP value to the unit's (negative) LFC value, thereby irretrievably immobilizing the unit !

6) Carpet Bombing INCREASES a unit's non-negative FP value !!

Is the Feature Relevant to Custom Content Design ?

I can think of content design situations where certain units have been granted limited fuel supplies for a scenario's entire duration, thereby being called upon to do their best under very challenging circumstances. To boot, Replacements Procurement will render such units irretrievably immobile on the spot...

[Lettos]

4) In-game, resupply by means of Replacements Procurement automatically wipes out all its positive FPs and resets its FP value to the unit's (negative) LFC value, thereby irretrievably immobilizing the unit !

Is the Feature Relevant to Custom Content Design ?

I can think of content design situations where certain units have been granted limited fuel supplies for a scenario's entire duration, thereby being called upon to do their best under very challenging circumstances. To boot, Replacements Procurement will render such units irretrievably immobile on the spot...

This is applicable in the case of Airborne troops!
Narvik'1940, Crete'1941 - well where did paratroopers get the reinforcements from that allowed the player to continue the fight as planned?

[Radoye]

Narvik'1940, Crete'1941 - well where did paratroopers get the reinforcements from that allowed the player to continue the fight as planned?

Bastogne 1944

If we look outside Europe - the Japanese defenders of Pacific islands during the US island hopping campaign

[Lettos]

Narvik'1940, Crete'1941 - well where did paratroopers get the reinforcements from that allowed the player to continue the fight as planned?

Bastogne 1944

If we look outside Europe - the Japanese defenders of Pacific islands during the US island hopping campaign

Arnhem 1944 too!

[Lettos]

Adding an aircraft carrier to the table.

-----------------------NA----GD--INI---CD/ASW------EXP Level---STR(Player)-----STR(AI)
Battleship----------20-----8----6---------9----------900--------------11--------------13
Heavy Cruiser-----17-----5----5---------7----------700---------------13-------------14
Light Cruiser------15------4----4---------2---------600---------------12-------------14
Destroyer----------13------3----3---------6---------500---------------12-------------14
Submarine---------12------0----1-----N/A(Any)---500---------------12-------------12
Sea Transport-----01--- "-8" --1---"0 up to -5"---N/A--------------N/A-----------N/A
Air Carrier---------12------2-----3----- "-4"-------- 500---------------10-------------10

Speaking of torpedo boats, Schnellboats, E-boats - I'm on the fence about who these sea mosquitoes are.

In those good old-fashioned but very damaging books - yes, they can sow doubt! - doesn't talk about torpedo boats winning battles in WW2 against Battleship and other large warships. But it does say a great deal about the actions of the Mosquito Fleet against a similar Mosquito Fleet. Attacks on transports, yes! Attacks on destroyers, sometimes. Attacks against submarines - sometimes.
Is that torpedo boat a Capital Ship class Crap unit by any chance?

Crap units are sometimes needed in the game, in scenarios. I don't want to define T-Boat parameters now, because I haven't come to a final conclusion about its species affiliation.

But if I continue the chain of my logical assumptions, the Destroyer class should also have a Crap unit. This role is quite suitable for Minelayer.

The parameters can be determined later, since neither T-Boat nor Minelayer had a decisive influence on the outcome of any naval battle. So, they were somewhere near, did something heroic - but nothing more than that. They are too small, even for a sea mosquito...

[Lettos]

Since I rid myself of a minor Torpedo-Boats problem in the laziest way possible today, some free time came up. I wanted to take a break from the difficult, interesting, but a bit shocking work with the PGF model, so I took the naval unit parameters from Pacific General for some light testing.

I don't know how it was in PacGen combat model - maybe there was a different algorythm for calculating battle results there. But in PGF, when the parameters of a naval unit NA are approximately equal to GD, naval combat turns into tennis, in which one side throws a grenade at the other and the attacked side throws a ball. And both the ball and the grenade are wrapped in a clue substance such as chewing gum to soften the impact.

The fight has no momentum. The results are predictable to the point of obscenity. 2 battleships always won in fight against Heavy Cruisers, 2 Heavy Cruisers always won against 4 Light Cruisers etc. And they win with a survived STR=14-15 out of a starting 20! There's no intrigue here, no game. It's boredom squared...

To cheer myself up after seeing the tests, I watched a Czech cartoon about the adventures of one mole who found chewing gum.

Krtek a žvýkačka / The Little Mole and the Chewing Gum: https://youtu.be/lhuMnz4enzU

[Lettos]

...referring to PGF, of course.

The planes carried on as normal despite any conditions. Well, I guess we shouldn't reduce their MVT depending on ground conditions? Or can we try to do a penalty under Muddy conditions?

Let's forget about airplanes! There are ships sailing around here too!

Why do we need Frozen weather in scenarios where there is no minus temperature at all?
Frozen weather can be changed to "Sandstorms" for the land surface. Some will say you have to draw so many new tiles! Tiles for frozen ground conditions are good for testing the idea. And then you have to think about what you can do there....

But for the ocean... Both Muddy and Frozen conditions can mean wind and storm. With a certain reduction in MVT. I happen to live near the sea, and it has been noted many times during walks: today there is wind, but no waves on the sea. But tomorrow there is no wind, but the waves caused by yesterday's wind are very strong.
Why don't naval units have a movement penalty during a very real storm with name "Muddy" or "redesigned so called Frozen"?
Something to think about, especially for campaigns in the Pacific ocean...
Will there be multiple exe files? Yes. Is there a problem with that?

[Lettos]

Aircraft attacking ships. It's a very complicated subject.
Starting to think about the problem...

There's definitely some philosophy needed here.

Maybe this one?
"En 1800, Lasalle revient en France. Alors qu’il reçoit des mains de Napoléon Bonaparte (décision du 17 thermidor 1800), une paire de pistolets et un sabre d’honneur16, il aurait eu ce mot célèbre : « Tout hussard qui n’est pas mort à trente ans est un jean-foutre."
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_C ... de_Lasalle
"Any hussar who isn't dead by the age of thirty is a fool."

The philosophy of the pilot of a torpedo-carrier aircraft? Very possibly... Otherwise, how else to explain the actions of SM.79 pilots in the Mediterranean, or Devastator pilots in the Battle of Midway?

But there must be some starting point for creating a model!?

[HexCode]

TEMPORARY APPEARANCE...

Intended Audience: # Lettos # & # Radoye #

For the purposes of THIS post, it's assumed that BOTH SFP / FP values AND LFC values are NEGATIVE.

This is a case of "Algebraic... Indeterminacy".

Relevant Play System Feature Description

1) There're no obvious restrictions as to the absolute values of negative SFP/FP and LFC values.

2) A unit which enters a scenario with negative SFP and LFC values is unable to move in-game, period.

3) In-game, Resupply Only or resupply by means of Replacements Procurement grant the unit MORE negative FPs. However, unit Overstrengthening has NO EFFECT on the unit's negative FPs.

4) In-game, a unit Upgrade (Auto-Upgrade as well) automatically resets its FP value to the unit's (negative) LFC value.

5) Carpet Bombing has NO EFFECT on a unit's negative FP value !

Is the Feature Relevant to Custom Content Design ?

I believe the present... "exotic" setup directly and effectively addresses a designer's potential use of surface units which are "meant" to remain immobile during a scenario's entire duration, no matter what.

[Lettos]

Is the Feature Relevant to Custom Content Design ?

I believe the present... "exotic" setup directly and effectively addresses a designer's potential use of surface units which are "meant" to remain immobile during a scenario's entire duration, no matter what.

The unit did not retreat into the ocean during the short tests. It appears to be the best replacement for the Anchored with Submarine transport units.

[Lettos]

It's a very complicated subject.

We'll start by removing the excess, and then we'll deal with the rest.

Flying ship enemies (PGF classes)

1) Level Bombers. In reality, they couldn't hit a moving ship. But they could hit stationary ships. Features of the used sights for horizontal bombing Norden and Lotfe7 - immobility of the target, and unchanged course of the airplane for several tens of seconds. Unchanging course of the aircraft under certain conditions can be ensured. But the immobility of the ship is guaranteed only when it is moored in port.
If you give the Level Bomber the Naval Attack option, it will greatly unbalance the model due to Suppression and loss of FUEL/AMMO to ships.

Wish for some game developers who might read this post someday: Level Bomber can only attack ships in port.

This is not a frequent situation, so developers can safely ignore the wish.

My conclusion in the context of PGF: the benefit of the decision to still give Level Bombers the Naval Attack option is disproportionate to the harm it will do to the balance of combat.

2) Tactical Bombers.

Of course, this particular class is the main enemy of ships attacking from the air!
There are two categories of bombers here, Tactical Dive Bombers and Torpedo Bombers.
Tactical Dive Bombers are a versatile tool for destroying both ground targets and ships. But it has a limitation - the weight of one bomb. This limitation does not allow you to quickly destroy a Battleship.
Torpedo Bombers are a specialized naval aviation unit. (I know it was possible to convert a regular bomber into a Torpedo Bomber and vice versa. But we are dealing with a model where we have to make some one-sided decision). It is unlikely that in the CORE lineup in a classic campaign like Poland 1939 there is room for a bomber that is needed only in naval battles.
Also, the torpedo Bomber is so specific in terms of survivability in combat that I'm considering it as an AUX unit for now.

3) Fighter
More or less effective against completely unarmored mosquito and transport ships.

Who is attacking first (Initiative)?

In terms of geometry, anti-aircraft artillery, and battle logic, it is the ship that attacks first.

But if we give a ship more initiative than a bomber in a PGF model, it will lead to model instability. Unbalancing will occur when the bomber is weaker or, conversely, gains more EXP and more STR than some basic balance setting.
It is very undesirable a situation where the right of first strike goes from the ship to the bomber.

Therefore, there will be a rule for the Admiral's tool - bombers attack either first or on terms of some sort of parity.
As EXP and STR increase, the model will not be unbalanced. There will be a linear increase in attack power.

[Lettos]

Tactical Dive Bomber and Fighter vs Capital Ships and Destroyer

Parameters should match conditions:

Dive Bomber is capable of damaging a Battleship. At the same time Dive Bomber suffers some insignificant losses.
In reality, Dive Bombers could not sink a Battleship. But their bombs seriously damaged the command post, fire control center, and light anti-aircraft guns. A Battleship without command posts turned into a floating pile of metal, useless in combat and difficult to control. The destruction of the anti-aircraft guns made the Battleship a very easy target for vulnerable Torpedo Bombers.

A wish for those game developers who keep reading the thread: you could make the Tactical Dive Bombers attack have a very strong effect on the ship's Air Defense. Did I accidentally say anything about higher math here?

Dive Bomber seriously damages Heavy Cruiser. The Heavy Cruiser is one and a half to two times weaker than the Battleship in terms of anti-aircraft artillery.

The Dive Bomber seriously damages the Light Cruiser. Light Cruiser is 2.5-3 times weaker than Battleship in anti-aircraft artillery.

Dive Bomber almost destroys Destroyer without taking almost any losses.

Fighter with Naval Attack = 1 damages Light Cruisers and Destroyers, but does almost no damage to Battleships and Heavy Cruisers.

I select Dive Bomber corresponding to Ju-87B/R/D to work with the model balance.

Pretty familiar parameters: STR=12, EXP=200. GD=6. INI=3.
Naval attack = as a result of tests = set to 12.

Change the INI parameter in the familiar table to match the model and requirements and adding AA and AD parameters for Capital ships and Destroyer:

-----------------------NA------GD------INI-----AA-----AD------CD/ASW-------------EXP Level--------STR(Player)-----STR(AI)
Battleship----------20-------8------"-6"------2-------8---------9-----------------------900----------------11--------------13
Heavy Cruiser-----17-------5------"-7"------3--------5--------7-----------------------700----------------13-------------14
Light Cruiser------15--------4------"-8"-----3------"-2"--------2-----------------------600---------------12-------------14
Destroyer----------13--------3------"-9"-----3------"-6"--------6-----------------------500---------------12-------------14
Submarine---------12--------0---------?------?-------?-------N/A(Any)----------------500---------------12-------------12
Sea Transport-----01------"-8" -------?------?-------?---"0 minus unit EXPLvl"-----N/A---------------N/A-----------N/A
Air Carrier---------12--------2---------?------?-------?-------- "-4"----------------------500---------------10-------------10

IF---------------------NA---GD---INI------------------EXP--------------STR(Player)
Tac Dive Bomber--12-----6-----3-------------------200------------------12
Torpedo Bomber---?------?-----?----------------------?--------------------?
Fighter--------------1------13--->3------------------200------------------12

[Lettos]

Generally speaking, in the case of the Battle of the Sea, the INI Cap is not a "Cap", but rather should be named "Level". Regardless of a negative INI value, the Capital ship vs Capital Ship rule in combination with a set Terrain Cap works as equating INI to one for attacker side or zero for attacked.
In this case, it's a good thing that it does!

[Lettos]

Torpedo Bomber(TacBomber Class = 9) attacking Capital Ship or Destroyer

Until I get the philosophy sorted out, no reasonable model parameters can be set.

...So, it was considered shameful for a hussar to live to be 30 years old...

At Midway, a total of 41 Devastators, the majority of the type still operational, were launched from Hornet, Enterprise and Yorktown to attack the Japanese fleet. The sorties were not well coordinated, in part because Rear Admiral Raymond A. Spruance ordered a strike on the enemy carriers immediately after they were discovered, rather than spending time assembling a well-coordinated attack involving the different types of aircraft – fighters, bombers, torpedo planes – reasoning that attacking the Japanese would prevent a counterstrike against the US carriers. The TBDs from Hornet and Enterprise lost contact with their escort and started their attacks without fighter protection.

The Devastator proved to be a death trap for its crews: slow and hardly maneuverable, with poor armor for the era; its speed on a glide-bombing approach was a mere 200 mph (320 km/h), making it easy prey for fighters and defensive guns alike. The aerial torpedo could not even be released at speeds above 115 mph (185 km/h). Torpedo delivery requires a long, straight-line attack run, making the aircraft vulnerable, and the slow speed of the aircraft made them easy targets for the Mitsubishi A6M Zeros. Only four TBDs made it back to Enterprise, none to Hornet and two to Yorktown, without scoring a torpedo hit.
Source: Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_TBD_Devastator

Some were killed by fighter planes, some by anti-aircraft fire.
There have been attacks in which out of six torpedo bombers sometimes one survived ...
Swordfish, Fairey Albacore, Nakajima B5N, SM.79, IL-4... There was little chance of the pilots seeing their grandchildren. The generals came up with a combat model in which a slow-moving airplane is long in range of the ship's anti-aircraft artillery fire.
Someone created a system of rewards and incentives for pilots and their relatives after the quite expected death of a pilot - essentially a kamikaze pilot. Way out there with very little chance of getting back in.
The death in the name of bright ideals, in the name of one of four warring empires, in the name of emperor or king, in the name of one of three odious leaders, in the name of one of four political and ideological systems... but it was still almost guaranteed doom.
For the homeland and industry, 20 airplanes were much cheaper, and - alas! - more profitable than the senseless loss of one Hood, on which 1,418 men died.
This is a very heavy and even psychologically difficult topic to express in percentages and model...

What does all this mean in terms of modeling? Trading a cheap chess bishop for a chess queen? Yeah, I guess so.

But, modeling will still have to be done! There are three ways to do this in the model.

1) A strong ship (primarily Battleship) has a much larger INI than a Torpedo Bomber. And is guaranteed to inflict some sort of casualties. The Torpedo Bomber then strikes the ship. The Bomber's NA must be very high for the strike to be felt.
The pros are a controlled result. Torpedo Bomber will never leave the battle without losses.
Cons - predictability of the result.
2) Battleship has equal INI.
Pros - intrigue of the battle. The player cannot be sure that exactly now this Torpedo Bomber will inflict losses in this particular attack.
Cons - other types of ships, weaker ones, get hit by Torpedo Bomber with completely predictable results.
3) Some kind of compromise between the first and second options.

None of the three proposed options are perfect. The problem is that in this specific case of Torpedo Bomber vs Ship, the distribution of random requires an inversed rather than a regular Gaussian. There is a higher probability of attacks on the edges of the Gaussians, and a much lower probability in the middle, where the regular Gaussians are bent "up".
Game developers, it's so easy to do in program code...

Torpedo bomber's parameters for third "compromise" option:

Naval Attack = 16, Ground Defense = 0, Initiative = "-4" (minus four). EXP = 300, STR=13.

That doesn't mean that these are the most correct parameters. Maybe I will go to option 1 or 2 after further experiments. At least I have marked a starting point for experiments on a wide field of modders' activity.

[Lettos]

Three series of 60 bomber attacks were performed in the tests.
In two series EXP of the submarine was =500, in one series =0.

Submarine STR has been varied, from 10 to 1. It doesn't affect the stats.

The number of instances of "Submarine dives!" = 44, 43, 48. That is, in 180 attacks, the submarine dived 135 times.

Submarine with INI/AD/GD/CD = " minus 99", and SA/HA/AA/NA = 0, and STR=1 has been tested. In 20 attacks 17 dives!

Chance to dive = 75%

[HexCode]

Lettos

Three series of 60 bomber attacks were performed in the tests. In two series EXP of the submarine was =500, in one series =0.
Submarine STR has been varied, from 10 to 1. It doesn't affect the stats. The number of instances of "Submarine dives!" = 44, 43, 48. That is, in 180 attacks, the submarine dived 135 times. Submarine with INI/AD/GD/CD = " minus 99", and SA/HA/AA/NA = 0, and STR=1 has been tested. In 20 attacks 17 dives!

Chance to dive = 75%

Much welcome, additional experimentation. Take a look here as well ==>

SUBMARINE CLASS UNIT EVASION (Part II)
viewtopic.php?f=100&t=543#p11395

[Lettos]

Lettos

Three series of 60 bomber attacks were performed in the tests. In two series EXP of the submarine was =500, in one series =0.
Submarine STR has been varied, from 10 to 1. It doesn't affect the stats. The number of instances of "Submarine dives!" = 44, 43, 48. That is, in 180 attacks, the submarine dived 135 times. Submarine with INI/AD/GD/CD = " minus 99", and SA/HA/AA/NA = 0, and STR=1 has been tested. In 20 attacks 17 dives!

Chance to dive = 75%

Much welcome, additional experimentation. Take a look here as well ==>

SUBMARINE CLASS UNIT EVASION (Part II)
viewtopic.php?f=100&t=543#p11395

I apologize, I read those studies of yours, but I didn't notice the part where "Dives!" is researched

[Lettos]

Researched Dive and Torpedo bomber attacks on:
Air Carrier
Sea Transport
Submarine

1) Attacks on Air Carrier

The PGF model is too primitive to display even the simple fact that Dive Bombers have a better chance of hitting a target. Dive Bombers fall on the target from above, and very quickly. The Torpedo Bomber takes a long time to fly, and in its path will meet the carrier's guard ships - destroyers, cruisers. Both the anti-aircraft artillery of the guard ships, and they themselves as an obstacle for a torpedo aimed at an aircraft carrier, should greatly reduce the chances of a torpedo bomber's successful attack.
None of this is in the model. That's why the Torpedo Bomber is more effective than the Dive Bomber.
Game Developers, could you make the Torpedo Bomber attack an Air Carrier with reduced attack efficiency?

2) Attacks on Sea Transport

The transport has almost no chance of surviving even a single attack.

3) Attacks on Submarine

The PGF model has nothing of the actual hunting of a submarine in the ocean. There's no separation of Torpedo and Dive bombers.
So just accept the fact that a submarine encounter with these types of bombers ends in zero for the submarine. Of all defensive weapons, the submarine has a 75% chance to Dive.
----

In Admiral's tool model a little devil was found who suddenly came riding in with a little nuance.
Submarine and negative INI are a technically possible but logically nonsensical combination.
If Submarine attacks Destroyer Terrain Cap (=1) is applied.
If Destroyer attacks Submarine, Submarine INI=0 + EXP INI Level.

Why would this Initiative submarine be in the PGF model at all? To do battle with a dozen bombers?

The little devil was expelled. At the same time, the parameters in the table got a more familiar look, which also expands the possibilities of fine-tuning for traditional modding. No huge overEXP, much less negative values in parameters.


-----------------------NA------GD------INI-----AA-----AD--------CD/ASW-----------------EXP Level--------STR(Player)-----STR(AI)
Battleship----------24-------12-------1------6--------12----------13--------------------------500----------------11-------------13
Heavy Cruiser-----20--------8--------1------6--------8-----------10--------------------------400----------------13-------------14
Light Cruiser------19--------8--------1------7--------2------------6---------------------------200----------------12-------------14
Destroyer----------18--------8--------1------8------"-1"----------11-----------------------------0----------------12-------------14
Submarine---------17--------6--------1------0-----"-14"---------N/A(Any)---------------------0----------------12-------------12
Sea Transport------0-------"-8"-------0------1-------2------"0 minus unit EXPLvl"--------N/A---------------N/A-----------N/A
Air Carrier---------17--------7---------0-----12------16------------1-----------------------------0----------------10-------------10

Balanced if in combat model we have aircraft:

---------------------------NA---GD----INI----EXP----STR(Player)
Tac Dive Bomber------12-----6------3------200-------12
Torpedo Bomber------16-----0------1------300-------13
Fighter------------------1------13---">3"----200-------12


Remains to be done:
Artillery fire by ships against surface targets - Soft/Hard Attack
Parameters Dual-purpose units (Submarine "surface", Anti-aircraft Air Carrier, Anti-aircraft Light Cruiser, Destroyer Capital Ship)
Small relatively weak units (Minelayer, Torpedo/Gun Boat)
Minefields (possible)

[Lettos]

Remains to be done:
Artillery fire by ships against surface targets - Soft/Hard Attack


In this thread it is not worth judging millimeters of caliber, service life of ship artillery barrels, ammunition, etc.

We have in our hands the so-called "bonus" model. The parameter should correspond to the artistic image of the world, and no more.

I don't like the vanilla attack parameters for SA/HA ships. The ships are too harmless....

In this model development, we see the parameters of Naval Attack. This is a ranged attack that applies equally to ships and ground artillery. That's great! A brutal solution as a starting point is SA=NA. HA = much less than SA. Let's say HA=20-25% of SA.
Tested. Infantry unit EXP=200 STR=12 for two Battleship STR=13 attacks SA=24+5EXP Star Level = 29 will turn to zero. Quite normal for a 356-406mm caliber compared to a 152mm caliber.
More or less historical, definitely subjective, interesting for the game, then can be adjusted. Let's go!

-----------------------SA----HA---NA-------GD------INI-----AA-----AD--------CD/ASW-----------------EXP Level--------STR(Player)-----STR(AI)
Battleship----------24-----6-----24-------12-------1------6--------12----------13--------------------------500----------------11-------------13
Heavy Cruiser-----20-----5-----20--------8--------1------6--------8-----------10--------------------------400----------------13-------------14
Light Cruiser------19-----4-----19--------8--------1------7--------2------------6---------------------------200----------------12-------------14
Destroyer----------18-----4-----18--------8--------1------8------"-1"----------11-----------------------------0----------------12-------------14
Submarine----------0-----0-----17--------6--------1------0-----"-14"---------N/A(Any)---------------------0----------------12-------------12
Sea Transport------0-----0------0-------"-8"-------0------1-------2------"0 minus unit EXPLvl"--------N/A---------------N/A-----------N/A
Air Carrier----------0-----0-----17--------7---------0-----12------16------------1-----------------------------0----------------10-------------10

Balanced if in combat model we have aircraft:

---------------------------NA---GD----INI----EXP----STR(Player)
Tac Dive Bomber------12-----6------3------200-------12
Torpedo Bomber------16-----0------1------300-------13
Fighter------------------1------13---">3"----200-------12

[Lettos]

I'm not an expert on mosquito fleet issues. I guess you can try such Minelayer parameters as a reference point:

-----------------------SA----HA---NA-------GD------INI-----AA-----AD--------CD/ASW-----------------EXP Level--------STR(Player)-----STR(AI)-----Fire Range
Battleship----------24-----6-----24-------12-------1------6--------12----------13--------------------------500----------------11-------------13---------------ANY
Heavy Cruiser-----20-----5-----20--------8--------1------6--------8-----------10--------------------------400----------------13-------------14---------------ANY
Light Cruiser------19-----4-----19--------8--------1------7--------2------------6---------------------------200----------------12-------------14---------------ANY
Destroyer----------18-----4-----18--------8--------1------8------"-1"----------11-----------------------------0----------------12-------------14 -----------------0
Minelayer----------11-----2-----14--------2--------1------7------"-2"----------12-----------------------------0-----------------12-------------14-----------------0
Submarine----------0-----0-----17--------6--------1------0-----"-14"---------N/A(Any)---------------------0-----------------12-------------12------------------0
Sea Transport------0-----0------0-------"-8"-------0------1-------2------"0 minus unit EXPLvl"--------N/A----------------N/A-----------N/A-----------------0
Air Carrier----------0-----0-----17--------7---------0-----12------16------------1-----------------------------0----------------10-------------10------------------0

Balanced if in combat model we have aircraft:

---------------------------NA---GD----INI----EXP----STR(Player)
Tac Dive Bomber------12-----6------3------200-------12
Torpedo Bomber------16-----0------1------300-------13
Fighter------------------1------13---">3"----200-------12


A larger than Destroyer CD/ASW is needed to balance combat with the submarine. The logical explanation is that the Minelayer is a little harder to hit.

[Lettos]

Minelayer in its mosquito-like essence is a scaled-down destroyer. The vanilla T-Destroyer.
S/T/PT boats is a mosquito that belongs to the Capital Ship class. Its attack power in the model is set the same as Minelayer's, but Boats belonging to Capital Ship class gives them a bonus of "-1" to the initiative of attacked Battleship, Heavy Cruiser, Light Cruiser.
Battleships and Heavy Cruisers still take no losses. But Light Cruiser, while easily defeating Minelayer's attack, suffers losses if it is attacked by Boats.
Boats added to table.

-----
Changes:
AD parameter increased by "+4" for all ships except mosquito fleet, accordingly NA increased for Bombers by "+4". Minelayer's AD increased by +2.
Now Light Cruiser and Destroyer suffer less damage when they are attacked by a Fighter.

-----

-----------------------SA----HA---NA-------GD------INI-----AA-----AD--------CD/ASW-----------------EXP Level--------STR(Player)-----STR(AI)-----Fire Range
Battleship----------24-----6-----24-------12-------1------6--------16----------13--------------------------500----------------11-------------13---------------ANY
Heavy Cruiser-----20-----5-----20--------8--------1------6--------12----------10--------------------------400----------------13-------------14---------------ANY
Light Cruiser------19-----4-----19--------8--------1------7--------6------------6---------------------------200----------------12-------------14---------------ANY
S/T/PT Boats--------0-----0-----14--------4--------1------5------"-4"----------12-----------------------------0-----------------12-------------14-----------------0
Destroyer----------18-----4-----18--------8--------1------8--------3-----------11-----------------------------0----------------12-------------14 -----------------0
Minelayer----------11-----2-----14--------2--------1------7--------0-----------12-----------------------------0-----------------12-------------14-----------------0
Submarine----------0-----0-----17--------6--------1------0-----"-10"---------N/A(Any)---------------------0-----------------12-------------12------------------0
Sea Transport------0-----0------0-------"-8"-------0------1-------6------"0 minus unit EXPLvl"--------N/A----------------N/A-----------N/A-----------------0
Air Carrier----------0-----0-----17--------7---------0-----12------20------------1-----------------------------0----------------10-------------10------------------0

Balanced if in combat model we have aircraft:

---------------------------NA----GD----INI-----EXP----STR(Player)
Tac Dive Bomber------16-----6------3------200-------12
Torpedo Bomber------20-----0------1------300-------13
Fighter------------------1------13---">3"----200-------12

[Lettos]

Two organic transports added. Submarine Surface and Destroyer CS (Capital Ship).

Their parameters can be adjusted more precisely. It should be taken into account that Destroyer CS should have NA approximately equal to the GD of its opponent. NA=8-10 vs GD=8 in the tests looked like a threshold. A larger Naval Attack results in AI using Destroyer only in Ranged attacks.

-------------------Class----SA----HA---NA-------GD------INI-----AA-----AD--------CD/ASW------------EXP Level--------STR(Player)-----STR(AI)-----Fire Range
Battleship--------13-----24-----6-----24-------12-------1------6--------16----------13---------------------500----------------11-------------13---------------ANY
Heavy Cruiser---13-----20-----5-----20--------8--------1------6--------12----------10--------------------400----------------13-------------14---------------ANY
Light Cruiser----13-----19-----4-----19--------8--------1------7--------6------------6----------------------200----------------12-------------14---------------ANY
S/T/PT Boats-----13------0-----0-----14--------4--------1------5------"-4"----------12-----------------------0-----------------12-------------14-----------------0
Destroyer--------12-------8-----2-----18--------8--------1------8--------3-----------11-----------------------0----------------12-------------14 -----------------0
Minelayer--------12-----11-----2-----14--------2--------1------7--------0-----------12------------------------0-----------------12-------------14-----------------0
Submarine--------11-----0-----0-----17--------6--------1------0-----"-10"---------N/A(Any)----------------0-----------------12-------------12------------------0
Sea Transport----17-----0-----0------0-------"-8"-------0------1-------6------"- unit EXPLevel"----------N/A---------------N/A-----------N/A-----------------0
Air Carrier--------14-----0-----0-----17--------7---------0-----12------20------------1------------------------0----------------10-------------10------------------0

+Organic Transports for Dual-purpose units:
Subm Surf.--------12-----1-----0-----14--------2--------1------1-----"-10"-----------18-----------------------0-----------------12-------------12------------------0
Destroyer CS-----13----18-----4------9--------8--------1------8--------3--------------9-----------------------0-----------------12-------------14 -----------------3

Balanced if in combat model we have aircraft:

---------------------------NA----GD----INI-----EXP----STR(Player)
Tac Dive Bomber------16-----6------3------200-------12
Torpedo Bomber------20-----0------1------300-------13
Fighter------------------1------13---">3"----200-------12

[Lettos]

Based on the results of the Closet Land AI-led admirals sent a request to the military industry to make "something" that could protect the navy in a Puddle Ocean.
As part of a large-scale fleet modernization program disguised from enemies by the code name "Something," shipyards created two auxiliary sub-classes of ships: the Anti-aircraft cruiser Something Rebuilt and Air Carrier Something Indefinable.

AA Cruiser was given the primary function of fighting enemy aircraft. The other functions somehow mimic something, but the cruiser created can in no way be compared to Atlanta-type cruisers.

The escort aircraft carrier created also has Anti-aircraft as its primary function. In the process of building the aircraft carrier, it became clear that this ship, converted from an old banana carrier, had additional capabilities:
A. Increased Spotting (up to "6")- emulates the reconnaissance capabilities of an escort air carrier.
B. Organic transport Class 14 even creates the capabilities of a real aircraft carrier, but AI admirals have admitted that they don't know how to use it yet.
C. Organic transport Class 12 emulates the anti-submarine actions of an escort air carrier. It's also some primitive emulation of a small aircraft carrier escort air group's ability to launch limited force strikes against enemy surface ships.

The admirals agreed that they had gotten the most they could out of the Something shipbuilding program. Saying that it was better this way than nothing at all, the admirals sailed off to test ships in what they called "Ocean of Real scenarios".

AA Cruiser and AA Air Carrier added:

-------------------Class----SA----HA---NA-------GD------INI-----AA-----AD--------CD/ASW----------------EXP----------STR(Player)-----STR(AI)-----Fire Range
Battleship--------13-----24-----6-----24-------12-------1------6--------16----------13---------------------500----------------11-------------13---------------ANY
Heavy Cruiser---13-----20-----5-----20--------8--------1------6--------12----------10--------------------400----------------13-------------14---------------ANY
Light Cruiser----13-----19-----4-----19--------8--------1------7--------6------------6----------------------200----------------12-------------14---------------ANY
S/T/PT Boats-----13------0-----0-----14--------4--------1------5------"-4"----------12-----------------------0-----------------12-------------14-----------------0
Destroyer--------12-------8-----2-----18--------8--------1------8--------3-----------11-----------------------0----------------12-------------14 -----------------0
Minelayer--------12-----11-----2-----14--------2--------1------7--------0-----------12------------------------0-----------------12-------------14-----------------0
Submarine--------11-----0-----0-----17--------6--------1------0-----"-10"---------N/A(Any)----------------0-----------------12-------------12------------------0
Sea Transport----17-----0-----0------0-------"-8"-------0------1-------6------"- unit EXPLevel"----------N/A---------------N/A-----------N/A-----------------0
Air Carrier--------14-----0-----0-----17--------7---------0-----12------20------------1------------------------0----------------10-------------10------------------0

+Organic Transports for Dual-purpose units:
Subm Surf.--------12-----1-----0-----14--------2--------1------1-----"-10"-----------18---------------------N/A-----------------12-------------12------------------0
Destroyer CS-----13----18-----4------9--------8--------1------8--------3--------------9---------------------N/A-----------------12-------------14 -----------------3


Experimental Dual-purpose units + Organic Transports:
----------------------------Class----SA----HA---NA----GD-----INI-----AA----AD----CD/ASW-----EXP----STR(Player)-----STR(AI)-----Fire Range---MVT---Spotting
AA Cruiser------------------5-----8-----2-----10-----8-------1------8------10-------1(any)-----200----------N/A-------------10------------------0----------0-------3
AA Cruiser Naval--------13-----8-----2-----14-----8-------1------7------10--------11---------N/A-----------N/A------------10------------------0----------6-------3
AA Air Carrier-------------5-----8-----2-----10-----7-------1-----10------20-------1(any)-----0-------------N/A-------------10 -----------------3----------0-------6
AA Air Carrier Naval---12-----8-----2-----10-----7-------1------8------16--------10----------N/A----------N/A-------------10-----------------3---------5-6------6

The above mentioned ship parameters are balanced if in combat model we have aircraft:

---------------------------NA----GD----INI-----EXP----STR(Player)
Tac Dive Bomber------16-----6------3------200-------12
Torpedo Bomber------20-----0------1------300-------13
Fighter------------------1------13---">3"----200-------12


Note 1. It is clear that dived Submarine can attack Dual-purpose AA Cruiser and AA Air Carrier only in their Naval status.
Note 2. If extensive and more varied testing reveals that the AA created Dual-purpose units choose ground rather than air targets, then the Naval, Soft and Hard Attack parameters will need to be reduced slightly.

[Lettos]

Well the final invention of industry that was given to the admirals as a bonus was "some kind of sea mine".
It's not a very dangerous mine. It doesn't do much damage warships. It's not a very stealthy mine - you can see it even from an airplane. But it is a harmful mine. It blocks the path.
And to remove it, player will need Destroyers or Minelayers, which usually sacrifices in the first turns in naval combat. A minefield somewhere near the last VH AI will force the player to change a bit his naval combat tactics.
The AD parameter is chosen to be very large to prevent demining by aircraft. Yes, I know about magnetic mines and demining by electromagnetic field. It will be someday, but not in this model now...
In order to make room in the model for the mine parameters, we had to slightly reduce the Submarine Surface attack parameter. Now this Submarine (surf.) (Destroyer Class) in a surface position can effectively attack only Sea transports (Killed-Losses ratio 6:0) and Submarine (surf.)(3:3).
If the Sea transport runs into a mine, it also will not have damage in current half-turn. But in next half-turn, the transport will be attacked by minefield with significant losses (3-4 from STR=13).

It is important to note that the minefield has STR=5(or 4) (if you make more, even a destroyer, not to mention Minelayer, will not be able to destroy the minefield at least sometimes with one attack).
Submarine (surf.), since it has Class 12, can also try to take out a minefield. But this attempt is unlikely to succeed very often. It will be more like demining at the cost of the submarine's slow death.
Mines have spotting=1. It is possible to make the spotting equal to zero. But =1 is more interesting, since the mine can attack a ship. The mine has a very small Naval Attack parameter, so the losses it will do to the ship will be in the range of 1-2 STR.
However, this is just a first experience, and only an example.
The designer's freedom in defining this parameter exists. It is possible to make mines more aggressive.
The minefield parameters have been added to the table.

-------------------Class----SA----HA---NA-------GD------INI-----AA-----AD--------CD/ASW----------------EXP----------STR(Player)-----STR(AI)-----Fire Range
Battleship--------13-----24-----6-----24-------12-------1------6--------16----------13---------------------500----------------11-------------13---------------ANY
Heavy Cruiser---13-----20-----5-----20--------8--------1------6--------12----------10--------------------400----------------13-------------14---------------ANY
Light Cruiser----13-----19-----4-----19--------8--------1------7--------6------------6----------------------200----------------12-------------14---------------ANY
S/T/PT Boats-----13------0-----0-----14--------4--------1------5------"-4"----------12-----------------------0-----------------12-------------14-----------------0
Destroyer--------12-------8-----2-----18--------8--------1------8--------3-----------11-----------------------0----------------12-------------14 -----------------0
Minelayer--------12-----11-----2-----14--------2--------1------7--------0-----------12------------------------0-----------------12-------------14-----------------0
Submarine--------11-----0-----0-----17--------6--------1------0-----"-10"---------N/A(Any)----------------0-----------------12-------------12------------------0
Sea Transport----17-----0-----0------0-------"-8"-------0------1-------6------"- unit EXPLevel"----------N/A---------------N/A-----------N/A-----------------0
Air Carrier--------14-----0-----0-----17--------7---------0-----12------20------------1------------------------0----------------10-------------10------------------0

+Organic Transports for Dual-purpose units:
Subm Surf.--------12-----1-----0-----8--------2--------1------1-----"-10"-----------12---------------------N/A-----------------12-------------12------------------0
Destroyer CS-----13----18-----4------9--------8--------1------8--------3--------------9---------------------N/A-----------------12-------------14 -----------------3


Experimental Dual-purpose units + Organic Transports:
----------------------------Class----SA----HA---NA----GD-----INI-----AA----AD----CD/ASW-----EXP----STR(Player)-----STR(AI)-----Fire Range---MVT---Spotting
AA Cruiser------------------5-----8-----2-----10-----8-------1------8------10-------1(any)-----200----------N/A-------------10------------------0----------0-------3
AA Cruiser Naval--------13-----8-----2-----14-----8-------1------7------10--------11---------N/A-----------N/A------------10------------------0----------6-------3
AA Air Carrier-------------5-----8-----2-----10-----7-------1-----10------20-------1(any)-----0-------------N/A-------------10 -----------------3----------0-------6
AA Air Carrier Naval---12-----8-----2-----10-----7-------1------8------16--------10----------N/A----------N/A-------------10-----------------3---------5-6------6


Minefield
----------------------------Class----SA----HA---NA----GD-----INI-----AA----AD----CD/ASW-----EXP----STR(Player)-----STR(AI)-----Fire Range---MVT---Spotting
Minefield Sea--------------11-----0-----0------9----12-------1------0------50-------1(any)-------0------------5--------------5------------------0----------0-------1

The above mentioned ship parameters are balanced if in combat model we have aircraft:

---------------------------NA----GD----INI-----EXP----STR(Player)
Tac Dive Bomber------16-----6------3------200-------12
Torpedo Bomber------20-----0------1------300-------13
Fighter------------------1------13---">3"----200-------12

[Lettos]

TEMPORARY APPEARANCE...

Intended Audience: # Lettos # & # Radoye #

I'm a believer in "measured" modding approaches. Namely, a content designer should strive to exhaust all technical possibilities supported by "lower level" avenues before "escalating". In the present context, if something can be accomplished by just modding scenario definition file *.PGSCN, there would be no need to touch unit definition file EQUIPMENT.PGEQP.

For the purposes of THIS post, it's assumed that SAP / AP values are NON-NEGATIVE while LAC values are NEGATIVE.

This is a case of "Algebraic Overcapacitation".

Relevant Play System Feature Description

Save one, all behaviors can be simulated by settings covered in my previous posts. The only exception is that Carpet Bombing INCREASES a unit's non-negative AP value !

Is the Feature Relevant to Custom Content Design ?

Providing a situational... deterrent to enemy Carpet Bombing ?

Unfortunately, the species affiliation of such a creature is unclear.

This world works in a very bizarre way. You start doing something, and some previously incomprehensible and misunderstood things suddenly become clear. The strange beast of Negative Listed Ammo has self-identified in practical application. It's a Fort, a Bunker. Big, huge box concreted with rebar, and with a huge ammo depot somewhere deep underground.

Such a fort should not lose its AMMO from some level bombing. Bombs can temporarily stun fort personnel. Bombs can raise a huge cloud of dust that will prevent fort artillery from firing. This is Suppression. But there should not be a situation in the game where a few level bombings make the AMMO of a fort equal to zero.
Negative listed AMMO should be used!
It becomes possible to create two subspecies of fortification - light (Strong Points, Pill Boxes, Fieldworks) and heavy (Field Fortification, Bunkers, Fortresses).