[ADV] Advanced Play System - Questions & Commentary

[Lettos]

I tried to create a "reference point":

Nothing radically new.
Flak 8.8 AA=15.
Wirbelwind AA=9 (reduced from 11)
Level Bombers maximum GD increased to 25.

[HexCode]

TEMPORARY APPEARANCE...

Intended Audience: # Lettos # & # Radoye #

On rare occasions, content designers have resorted to Undercapacitating a unit's ammo by specifying Starting Ammo Points (SAPs) less than the unit's Listed Ammo Capacity (LAC).

For the purposes of THIS post, it's still assumed that BOTH SAP and LAC values are POSITIVE.

Is the Feature Relevant to Custom Content Design ?

This is another interesting question. On the face of it, Ammo Undercapacitation does saddle a unit with a fighting disadvantage. For how long, though ? Resupply / Replacements Procurement significantly ameliorates, even nullifies, the disadvantage.

I can think of the following "special" situation. At the very start of a scenario, an Undercapacitated unit finds itself "tightly" surrounded by enemy units. To this effect, Resupply / Replacements Procurement is practically impossible. Similarly, retreating to safety so as to procure Resupply / Replacements "in peace" isn't a viable option. The unit must keep on fighting until it runs out of ammo. Once that happens, the enemy's chances of destroying the unit increase significantly. A most interesting situation arises when a super-resilient (as per Listed Attributes) unit runs out of ammo while being surrounded by significantly weaker (as per Listed Attributes) enemy units taking successive potshots at it. Listed strength / resilience is compromised by Situational vulnerability.

[Lettos]

TEMPORARY APPEARANCE...

On rare occasions, content designers have resorted to undercapacitating a unit's ammo by specifying Starting Ammo Points (SAPs) less than the unit's Listed Ammo Capacity (LAC).

For the purposes of THIS post, it's still assumed that BOTH SAP and LAC values are POSITIVE.

Is the Feature Relevant to Custom Content Design ?

This is another interesting question. On the face of it, ammo undercapacitation does saddle a unit with a fighting disadvantage. For how long, though ? Resupply / Replacements Procurement significantly ameliorates, even nullifies, the disadvantage.

I can think of the following special situation. At the very start of a scenario, an undercapacitated unit finds itself "tightly" surrounded by enemy units. To this effect, Resupply / Replacements Procurement is practically impossible. Similarly, retreating to safety so as to procure Resupply / Replacements "in peace" isn't a viable option. The unit must keep on fighting until it runs out of ammo. Once that happens, the enemy's chances of destroying the unit increase significantly. A most interesting situation arises when a super-resilient (as per Listed Attributes) unit runs out of ammo while being surrounded by significantly weaker (as per Listed Attributes) enemy units taking successive potshots at it. Listed strength / resilience is compromised by Situational vulnerability.

Certainly this option is relevant!

You've just described the classic situation of coming out from pocket (kessel)!

The second case where you need to reduce AMMO at the start is when you want to delay some units on the first turn. I'm currently finishing a classic North Africa scenario that has gotten so far away from vanilla design that it could be an interesting novelty. There will be naval convoys and multi-vectoring as well. And I require that some AUX units do not touch down on the first turn. That is, in some parts of the map the initiative of the first turn will be deliberately given to the enemy. (Reminds me of something from chess principles?).
Of course, I can still expand the map so that the first turn of some players will be wasted. But it's not a very nice solution to add 15 hexes to the map just because I don't know how to reduce AMMO or FUEL.

The third case where you will need to reduce AMMO at the start is when the enemy is not ready for your attack. Yes, he has a gazillion units. But they're... they're not loaded with ammo. Relaxed, let their guard down. A fabulous situation? Not at all. June 22, 1941. A huge mass of Soviet troops did not have full ammunition. That is, at the start have unambiguously incomplete AMMO. The task of the German army - the player - is to prevent all these hundreds of KV-1s and T-34s, surrounded by the player's units on a large perimeter. There was even an idea to make some kind of air unkillable unit under the conditional name Kessel (AUX), so that the player could suspend this unit over the most critical areas of the pocket. Maybe I'll come back to this idea again. But in situations where the perimeter surrounded unit keeps getting Re-Supply, I don't like it. We can't fix it in exe. That leaves to use all sorts of tricks.

[HexCode]

TEMPORARY APPEARANCE...

Intended Audience: # Lettos # & # Radoye #

In-Game Ammo Point Exhaustion

This is straightforward PGF-SSI territory. Moving on...

Starting Ammo Point (SAP) Value Zero ?

Case I: Unit Listed Ammo Capacity (LAC) Value -- Positive

Technically impossible to set up. PGF's engine interprets a value ZERO (0) to signify granting the unit SAPs equal to the unit's LAC.

Case II: Unit Listed Ammo Capacity (LAC) Value -- Zero

This setting certainly accomplishes the task. However, it also "condemns" the unit to participating in in-game fighting without any ammo to shoot at the enemy.

Is the Feature Relevant to Custom Content Design ?

This topic comes up in modding discussions from time to time. Some typical examples:

- Civilian / Refugee Units
- Dirt Airfield Units
- Dedicated Bridging Units

[Lettos]

This topic comes up in modding discussions from time to time. Some typical examples:

- Civilian / Refugee Units
- Dirt Airfield Units
- Dedicated Bridging Units

Sure, Organic, Air and Sea transports.

Some buildings. These are the units I need to balance prestige in a scenario. I decided to go this way - reduce the reward for objectives (VH = 8PP, normal objective = 4 PP), reduce the cost of some AI units. I achieved a situation where the player doesn't have enough PP for Elite Replacements during the scenario. But as the number of CORE units and the cost of the player's units increases, sometimes he will not have enough prestige for regular Replacements. Some kind of compensator is needed. This is a military depot, factory, AI HQ, which are very expensive and will give a big reward to the player when they are destroyed (conventionally - captured). Sometimes the warehouse is on a road, and requires one hit to destroy - but this creates a delay for the player's unit to move on to the last VH. (Recently, somewhere we were discussing the topic of roadblocks, mountain debris and other road problems.)
These buildings-units should have AMMO=0.

Please add non-tipical example: Stub.

You can release AI air units onto the battlefield when required by the scenario - in turn 10, in turn 20.
But unfortunately, this plug is not a surprise to the player. The player will see when Rainy Clouds runs out of fuel and can prepare for the surprise. But at least it works!
Allied (AI) units Clouds can't be Tac or Level bombers because the AI fighters won't go anywhere and will stand on adjacent hexes to protect the clouds.
Therefore Clouds must be only Fighter class units with AMMO=0.

Another example - temporarily switched-off friendly airfield. Allied(AI) Rainy Clouds with AMMO=0 and AD=99. It's useless to attack these rain clouds.

[HexCode]

TEMPORARY APPEARANCE...

Intended Audience: # Lettos # & # Radoye #

Once a content designer utilizes negative integers, he finds himself squarely in "design-for-effect" territory.

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

Relevant Play System Feature Description

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

2) A unit which enters a scenario with a NEGATIVE SAP value is able to unobstructedly expend APs "on credit" in-game until its AP status turns non-negative (if ever) due to sufficient Resupply.

3) In-game, BOTH Resupply Only AND resupply by means of Replacements Procurement algorithms work like algebraic... charms. Wow !

4) In-game, a unit Upgrade (Auto-Upgrade as well) automatically wipes out all its negative APs and resets its AP value to the unit's LAC value.

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

Is the Feature Relevant to Custom Content Design ?

What I've just described is "Algebraic Undercapacitation". Yet, the ensuing unit properties are markedly "superior" to those previously identified under "normal" Overcapacitation...

In a nutshell, the unit keeps on shooting without being afraid of running out of ammo. It can still Resupply with or without Replacements Procurement without losing the benefit of negative AP values. Moreover, it doesn't have to worry about any adverse effects on its APs due to Carpet Bombing. Sounds like a dream weapon to me...

[Lettos]

Once a content designer utilizes negative integers, he finds himself squarely in "design-for-effect" territory.
<...>
In a nutshell, the unit keeps on shooting without being afraid of running out of ammo. It can still Resupply with or without Replacements Procurement without losing the benefit of negative AP values. Moreover, it doesn't have to worry about any adverse effects on its APs due to Carpet Bombing. Sounds like a dream weapon to me...

For me too!
Within the narrow confines of narrow historical as well as broad a-historical realism, such an option is unlikely to find use in a war of earthlings vs. earthlings.
When "The War of the Worlds" scenario becomes relevant, or "Legend of Mohenjo-daro", option might be useful.

[HexCode]

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 ?

[Lettos]

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.

Oh, and speaking of Carpet bombing, the process has few analogies to reality either.
I'm tired of watching Battleships and Heavy tanks lose AMMO and FUEL from Carpet bombing, and also go into psychological shock from fear.
To somewhat normalize the process, I did the following:
Level Bombers Hard Attack = 0
Level Bombers Naval Attack = 0
Level Bombers Soft Attack = 1-2-3
Bombers Special = starting from 5 for early bombers and up to 15-20 later.

It turns out that even though HA=0, Level Bombers can bomb Victory Hex from enemy tanks.
Well, that's great!

Overall, the changes were very useful in the сampaign. Now you can't stop a KV or Matilda tank strike, and you can't "turn off" an enemy fleet with constant carpet bombing.

[HexCode]

TEMPORARY APPEARANCE...

Intended Audience: # Lettos # & # Radoye #

The last data section featured in scenario definition file *.PGSCN is entitled "# Units". It hosts a column entitled "Fuel". The column's entries adhere to an integer format. Each value represents the FPs the corresponding unit is granted at the very start of the scenario (SFPs).

File EQUIPMENT.PGEQP contains a column entitled "Max Fuel". The column's entries adhere to an integer format. Each value represents the corresponding unit's Listed Fuel Capacity (LFC).

For the purposes of THIS post, it's assumed that BOTH SFP and LFC values are POSITIVE.

Relevant Play System Feature: Basic Description

1) There're no obvious restrictions as to the magnitudes of SFP / LFC values.

2) PGF's engine interprets an empty SFP cell as having value ZERO (0).

3) SFP value ZERO (0) instructs PGF's engine to assign to the unit SFPs equal to the unit's LFC.

4) A SFP value can be less (Undercapacitation) or greater (Overcapacitation) than the unit's LFC. No matter, in-game, the relevant Resupply Only algorithms work like a charm.

[HexCode]

TEMPORARY APPEARANCE...

Intended Audience: # Lettos # & # Radoye #

On occasion, content designers have specified Starting Fuel Point (SFP) values greater than a unit's Listed Fuel Capacity (LFC). That's Overcapacitation.

For the purposes of THIS post, it's still assumed that BOTH SFP and LFC values are POSITIVE.

Relevant Play System Feature: Special Properties

1) In all instances, Replacements Procurement automatically wipes out all FPs in excess of a unit's LFC.

2) In all instances, in-game unit Upgrades (Auto-Upgrades as well) automatically wipe out all FPs in excess of a unit's LFC.

The algorithms governing Resupply via Replacements Procurement or Upgrades are not Resupply Only ones. They do not conform to strict algebraic logic.

Interestingly enough, loss of FPs due to Carpet Bombing does obey strict algebraic logic. The underlying algorithm is a Resupply Only one, in reverse !

Is the Feature Relevant to Custom Content Design ?

This is a rather interesting question. On the face of it, Fuel Overcapacitation does confer an indirect fighting advantage to a unit. For how long, though ? Replacements Procurement automatically nullifies the advantage. Plausible situations follow:

A) Units less likely to incur serious Strength Factor (SF) losses for awhile due to their considerable distance from the thick of the battle which nevertheless must race towards it at breakneck speed.

B) Units less likely to incur serious SF losses for awhile due to their superior attack and defense capabilities (e.g., super-armor, super-fighters).

C) Units assigned missions requiring them to keep on fighting without respite no matter what. Such missions could be suicidal or, in the case of sufficiently Overstrengthened units, relatively unstoppable walkovers.

[Lettos]

A) Units less likely to incur serious Strength Factor (SF) losses for awhile due to their considerable distance from the thick of the battle which nevertheless must race towards it at breakneck speed.

Or capturing a remote location somewhere far away. At the start of the Stand-alone scenario, the player has only units with small LFC. Some units have Fuel Overcapacitation. Not all of them can reach the remote objective. The task of the starting combat is to conduct it in such a way that units with Fuel Overcapacitation remain unharmed to fulfill the main objective.

Scenarios along the lines of: We go far, there is no turning back.
Anabasis (Xenophon) BC, Cortes Tenochtitlan 1521, 1st Panzer Army (Hube) 1943-44 breaks out of the pocket

This scenario doesn't seem to find much use in the standard Campaign mode.

B) Units less likely to incur serious SF losses for awhile due to their superior attack and defense capabilities (e.g., super-armor, super-fighters).
C) Units assigned missions requiring them to keep on fighting without respite no matter what. Such missions could be suicidal or, in the case of sufficiently Overstrengthened units, relatively unstoppable walkovers.

Brave Air Aces.
In Campaign mode, the option comes in handy for AI Aces.

[Lettos]

HexCode sometime long ago took the flashlight of enlightenment to start developing this dark direction:

SUBMARINE CLASS UNIT DETECTION viewtopic.php?f=100&t=543#p11016
SUBMARINE CLASS UNIT EVASION (Part I) viewtopic.php?f=100&t=543#p11394
SUBMARINE CLASS UNIT EVASION (Part II) viewtopic.php?f=100&t=543#p11395

HexCode has pre-set the conditions for testing, and rightly so. We have to start somewhere!

Caveats: It is assumed that Unit Strength, Experience and Weather Conditions do NOT affect Evasion chances...

Let's try to figure out what's in the deeps.
Does anything in Evade, Dive abilities depend on Initiative, Ground Defense?
How is the result of an attack calculated when:
- Submarine attacks Capital Ship or Air Carrier Classes?
- Submarine attacks Sea transport?
- Submarine attacks Destroyer Class?
- Destroyer Class attacks Submarine?
- Air units attacks Submarine?
- If someone trying to find the Submarine in the ocean?

[Lettos]

Submarine initiate attack vs Capital Ship

In tests participated: Submarine Naval Attack=9 and Capital ships (Battleship, Heavy Cruiser and Light Cruiser) and Air Carrier.
So 40 Submarines attacked 4x10 ships.

First test. GD parameter is equal:
Battleship = 22, Heavy Cruiser = 14, Light Cruiser = 12 and Air Carrier = 10.
After attack survived from 10x10=100 STR:
Battleship = 65
Heavy Cruiser = 62
Light Cruiser = 68
Air Carrier = 65
------------------------ Total = 258 from 400.

Second test.
GD parameter is equal to "99" for all ships.
After attack survived from 10x10=100 STR:
Battleship = 58
Heavy Cruiser = 48
Light Cruiser = 74
Air Carrier = 74
------------------------ Total = 254 from 400.

Third test.
GD parameter is equal to "0" for all ships.
After attack survived from 10x10=100 STR:
Battleship = 62
Heavy Cruiser = 58
Light Cruiser = 79
Air Carrier = 68
------------------------ Total = 267 from 400.

If Submarine Naval attack parameter will be changed you will see that increasing the parameter increases losses, decreasing it decreases losses.

Conclusion: If Submarine attacks Capital Ship or Air Carrier they will have Ground Defense = 0.

There is no point in discussing deadweight, watertight compartments, underwater armor, anti-torpedo bulges and nets within the PGF model. In terms of the model, a light cruiser with deadweight 5000 tonns and Tirpitz battleship with deadweight about 50 000 tonns are same oversized metal cans on the water.


I should add that the same submarine with NA=9 attacks Sea transport with much higher efficiency. Some very large bonus to Submarine NA applies here. Sea transport GD does not matter. But a submarine with NA=9 cannot sink a transport in one attack. It inflicts huge losses of 6-9 STRs, but the transport remains alive. An analogy from the realm of the delusional: a unit was being transported on several transports (say, four on one hex), and the submarine shot through three of the transports with a single torpedo and slightly damaged the fourth.

Gaming madness. I wonder if the followers of the Panzer General game use the same model?

[Lettos]

Submarine initiates attack vs Destroyer Class Ship.

Yeah, we'll have to see how the naval tanks behave in combat against each other.
In tests participated: Submarine Naval Attack=9, Ground defense = 9, INI=3 and Destroyer with same parameters.
30 Submarines attacked 30 destroyers.

Two tests completed.
Survived from 300:
Submarines: 273(1) - 279(2)
Destroyers : 287(1) - 282(2)

Third test. Submarine INI changed to "99", Destoyer INI still = 3.
Survived from 300:
Submarines: 280
Destroyers : 276

Fourth test. Submarine INI=3, Destroyer's INI=99
Survived from 300:
Submarines: 276
Destroyers : 287

Hey, experimenter, you're seeing something weird! That's how true land tanks behave:
GD=9 HA=9 INI=3. 30 tanks attacked 30 tanks:
Survived from 300:
Attackers: 206
Attacked: 216

Next test with tanks. GD=9, HA=9, Attackers INI=99, attacked INI tanks have INI=3.
Survived from 300:
Attackers: 263
Attacked: 172

First conclusion: submarine and destroyer are not tanks in the ocean... (to the experimenter - and you thought it was? Quite frankly, yes!).
Second conclusion: the INI parameter does not affect the result of a submarine attacking a destroyer.

The third conclusion is that something is wrong with the Naval Attack and Ground Defense settings in tests. Now we see two classes that are incapable of harming each other. A submarine will need 15 attacks to destroy a destroyer. A destroyer will need fifteen attacks to sink a submarine. And if we also remember the submarine's ability to Evade and the associated 50% attack probability, then not 15, but 30 turns! Or, 6 destroyers will destroy one submarine in 5 turns... I've seen such gatherings around one table in scenarios before...

[Lettos]

Submarine initiates attack vs Destroyer Class Ship.

In tests participated: Submarine Ground defense = 9, INI=3 and Destroyer with same parameters. Destroyer's Naval attack = 9, but it doesn't matter in these tests. The result of the battle depending on changes in the Naval Attack parameter of the submarine is investigated.
30 Submarines attacked 30 destroyers.

Submarine NA -- Destoryers survived from 300 available:
9 --- 276-287
11 -- 263
12 -- 240
13 -- 224
14 -- 206 (bias Random)
15 -- 217
16 -- 174
18 -- 137
20 -- 115

Right off the bat, we should point out the fact that the submarine ALWAYS attacks first.

Conclusion: Well, if you compare the results with experiments with tanks on land, you can see that the submarine has a penalty when attacking a destroyer. I can't say with 100% certainty, but it looks very likely that the penalty to Submarine Naval Attack in case of a destroyer attack is "minus 6".

Let's see what the authors of the classic Panzer General have to say about it.
Submarine Naval attack = 10
Destroyer Ground Defense = 3
Torpedo boat GD = 2.

What an amazing coincidence!

The game authors knew that to destroy a Destroyer by at least one third or 2/5 of its strength, it requires exactly that NA<->GD ratio.

Of course, my brain has already exploded - what does it mean to destroy a destroyer by one third??
These destroyers with deadweight 1000-1500 tonnes were broken in half by a torpedo hit! It would be much more correct for destroyers to make the game as follows: "Torpedo did not hit". But if it did, then ... that's it.
Both light cruisers and transports could hardly remain a healthy ship after being hit by even a single torpedo too.

The next episode of the series will explore the Destroyer vs. Submarine attack. Don't miss this new thriller!

[Lettos]

Destroyer initiates attack vs Submarine

General rules, which in observing the tests had no exceptions.
- Only Destroyer strikes. This is independent of the submarine's INI. The submarine, when attacked by a Destroyer, is only a victim, not a fighter.
- The submarine's ability to evade is independent of Submarine or Destroyer parameters INI, NA, GD. The only thing that matters here is the very fact that Destroyer is attacking Submarine. Chance to Evade = 50%, confirmed HexCode results!

Skipping the boring stats, I'll jump straight to the conclusion: If a destroyer attacks a submarine, the destroyer gets a "minus 6" penalty to its Naval Attack.

The classicists who created Panzer General did the following on this occasion: Destroyer NA=16, Submarine GD=2.
They were well versed in the mathematical model of the game they created.
The result is: Destroyer NA = 16 - 6 = 10 vs GD = 2 mean about 50% loses for attacked Submarine.

My brain is exploding again. What does 50% casualties mean for a submarine?
There's a great movie about a submarine, "The boat" (Das Boot), 1981, Directed by Wolfgang Petersen. The movie does a very good job of showing what a boat with even less than 50% damage can and can't do. I recommend the movie to watch. In 1981, direct participants of military events could still participate in the creation of the movie and actually consulted director. The objective situation is that we will not see more truth than in this movie about submarines in feature films.
So, in reality, a submarine is out of the game when it receives even not very significant damage. It returns to the base for repair.

Back to PGF.
So we have horror (a thriller was promised). The submarine has a penalties of "-6" to NA when attacking the Destroyer. Destroyer has a penalti of "-6" to NA when attacking Submarine.
Both the Submarine and Destroyer, if effectively attacked, must effectively go out of play. The Submarine will not survive a depth bomb hit. The Destroyer will not survive a torpedo hit.
In the vanilla .eqp file, we can't significantly increase the Destroyer NA (it will become stronger than the Battleship). And we can't increase Submarine NA (then it will start sinking tin cans with one shot).
We can't significantly decrease Submarine GD because it already =2.
We can't significantly reduce Destroyer GD because even the value =3 looks illogical when compared to a light cruiser.

In the next episode, this situation will be analyzed and perhaps a solution to the problem will be found.

[Radoye]

For submarine (and destroyer?) class, they attack against Close Defense not Ground Defense IIRC...

[Lettos]

For submarine (and destroyer?) class, they attack against Close Defense not Ground Defense IIRC...

Good point!
The questions arise here again:
1) Is the information verified or is it all promises by the PGF author and (now outdated) Panzer General authors? So many times we have believed something and been wrong..... is it true this time? I don't know.
2) It could be true. Partially or not - I don't know now for now.
The attacked capital Ships had a CD:
Air Carrier CD = 9
Battleship CD = 8
Heavy Cruiser CD = 12
Light Cruiser CD = 11
Destroyer CD = 16 (GD = changed in tests)
Submarine CD = 9 (GD = changed in tests)
And I've seen in tests that there is a small statistical difference between losses for AirCarrier and Battleship compared to Heavy Cruiser and Light Cruiser.
Heavy Cruiser and Light Cruiser had slightly fewer casualties. But I'm not at all sure now if the difference in losses was equivalent to a "3-4" difference in CD.
Indeed, in the tests I only changed the NA parameter, but not GD and CD. And by some coincidence CD also turned out to be equal to GD...
We have to find out if we're dealing with a CD or some formula.
Everything has to be tested.
3) I am sometimes very much in need of informative support. I, to my shame, do not know where the secret knowledge regarding Close Defense is written down. And I'm not sure I should have been born with that knowledge, nor do I have a time machine to go back to the time of PG/PGF's creation. I can honestly say that I am stupid for being uninformed.
It would be ideal if this knowledge could be collected in one place! I have already had thoughts of creating a manual for modders, containing such elementary things in general, without delving into the basic structure of the game. Or both deep knowledge and such rules can be combined in one document?
4) The fact that the CD parameter is involved in Submarine and Destroyer attacks is great! If it will be confirmed! I suspect that to a large extent the tests will confirm and find something!
And if it does, there's a very good chance of making naval combat much more real!

[Lettos]

Lettos wrote: Conclusion: If Submarine attacks Capital Ship or Air Carrier they will have Ground Defense = 0. WRONG!

For submarine (and destroyer?) class, they attack against Close Defense not Ground Defense IIRC...

Lettos, find out information, experiment with Close Defense, and the conclusions will be different!

Submarine attacks Capital Ships

The first test showed that yes, it is not Ground but Close Defense that works here. Perfect!

In Panzer General the classics knew this and made the CD equal:
Battleship = 12
Heavy Cruiser = 8
Light Cruiser = 6
Destroyer = 7
Air Carrier = 8

If the same classics have Submarine Naval Attack = 10, then.... there's almost no tweaking required at first glance.
Well, maybe a little bit of tweaking for Battleship upwards, and some more tweaking for the other ships.... But overall everything is fine and logical!

[HexCode]

Lettos

[Ctrl+Click] ==> Extended Combat Prediction
[L] ==> Last Combat Log

The first Hot Key addresses an envisaged player's desire (yeah, right ) to know some details as to whether a contemplated attack of his is likely to produce (or not) positive results.

It's the second Hot Key which "reveals" details regarding the outcomes of some specific attack. It's the closest to what one might find in a traditional, technical manual (such manuals simply don't exist in SSI's "World"... Hence, an "outsider's" need for some... Library !)

Of course, there's absolutely no guarantee the depicted mechanics accurately reflect the underlying programming...

[Lettos]

Lettos wrote: penalty to Submarine Naval Attack in case of a destroyer attack is "minus 6". WRONG!

If Submarine initiates attack vs Destroyer, Destroyer Close Defense parameter used!

[HexCode]

Lettos

Terminological Clarification:

All naval units (targets) exhibit "ASW Defense" values instead of "Close Defense" ones. "ASW" stands for "Anti-Submarine Warfare".

[Lettos]

[Ctrl+Click] ==> Extended Combat Prediction
[Alt+Click] ==> Last Combat Log

The first Hot Key addresses an envisaged player's desire (yeah, right ) to know some details as to whether a contemplated attack of his is likely to produce (or not) positive results.

It's the second Hot Key which "reveals" details regarding the outcomes of some specific attack. It's the closest to what one might find in a traditional, technical manual (such manuals simply don't exist in SSI's "World"... Hence, an "outsider's" need for some... Library !)

Of course, there's absolutely no guarantee the depicted mechanics accurately reflect the underlying programming...

[Alt+Click] - It's not working for me for some reason. It shows the unit's characteristics. My laptop glitch?

[Ctrl+Click] ==> Extended Combat Prediction - shows the intended result. Some kind of average statistics, the average temperature of patients in the hospital..... It is of no use except for information about INI.

[Lettos]

Terminological Clarification:

All naval units (targets) exhibit "ASW Defense" values instead of "Close Defense" ones. "ASW" stands for "Anti-Submarine Warfare".

That's great! I saw this name in eqpedit and didn't understand - what does it mean? Live and learn forever!
Should we put it all in the library?

[HexCode]

Apologies Lettos

[L] ==> Last Combat Log

Sorry about that !

[Lettos]

Lettos wrote: If a destroyer attacks a submarine, the destroyer gets a "minus 6" penalty to its Naval Attack. WRONG!

If Destroyer attacks a submarine, Submarine will use their Ground Defense parameter.

[Lettos]

Apologies...

[L] ==> Last Combat Log

Sorry about that !

Works!
----
Statistics that can't be trusted
Of course, if a player had a hundred submarines attacking a hundred identical destroyers on an action=nally map, then you could look at the stats. But in the game - it is better to know nothing than to know such an average lie

[Lettos]

It's already dark night in our woods and swamps, so I'll say goodbye for today and wish my friends a good day!

I apologize for the confusion I have created due to my uninformedness. But overall the result of the day is good - there is now clarity on how these naval units interact in battle, and what needs to be done with the parameters.

Thanks to HexCode and Radoye for support!

[Radoye]

Thanks to HexCode and Radoye for support!

Always here to help!

[Lettos]

I've made some tables that might be a useful PGF-Admiral tool







With Italic font and gray cell background, I have highlighted the experiments that were not performed. The results are interpolated to create a chart.

The tables show very well what the losses will be for the attacked ships (and sometimes, respectively, for the attackers).

Destroyer vs Submarine attack stats do not take into account the 50% discount from the Submarine to Evade chance. That is, it is difficult, almost impossible to sink Submarine in 2-3 attacks with classic vanilla parameters (Destroyer NA=16, Submarine GD=2).

One should also not forget the strange principle "even a small and weak unit can inflict losses on a strong one". That's 5% losses even when NA=1 and GD or CD(ASW) = 99.
Let's say strange sperm wales started to bite a Battleship, or strange guys in rubber boats attacked a heavy cruiser, or a destroyer crew threw potatoes at a submarine instead of depth bombs. 5% casualties anyway. In case of destroyer and potatoes - 2.5% because of 50% probability of Evade for the submarine.

[Lettos]

Folk art

[HexCode]

TEMPORARY APPEARANCE...

Intended Audience: # Lettos # & # Radoye #

On rare occasions, content designers have resorted to Undercapacitating a unit's fuel by specifying Starting Fuel Points (SFPs) less than the unit's Listed Fuel Capacity (LFC).

For the purposes of THIS post, it's still assumed that BOTH SFP and LFC values are POSITIVE.

Is the Feature Relevant to Custom Content Design ?

This is yet another interesting question. On the face of it, Fuel Undercapacitation does saddle a unit with an indirect fighting disadvantage. For how long, though ? Resupply / Replacements Procurement significantly ameliorates, even nullifies, the disadvantage.

Situations might arise where a scenario designer wishes for some unit not to be able to race full throttle towards some important map location or, equally, away from it. If so, the unit might be forced to momentarily stop and trigger (if situationally feasible) Resupply / Replacements Procurement.

[Lettos]

This is yet another interesting question. On the face of it, Fuel Undercapacitation does saddle a unit with an indirect fighting disadvantage. For how long, though ? Resupply / Replacements Procurement significantly ameliorates, even nullifies, the disadvantage.

Situations might arise where a scenario designer wishes for some unit not to be able to race full throttle towards some important map location or, equally, away from it. If so, the unit might be forced to momentarily stop and trigger (if situationally feasible) Resupply / Replacements Procurement.

Hi HexCode!

Exactly!
Here is an example in the image. The green airсrfat group should not fly out immediately on the first turn. Otherwise it won't be interesting.
If it flies out on the first turn, the group will find the convoy at once. On the second turn, I think the air group has the last chance to attack the convoy. It's very good for scenario! In the next version of the scenario, I'll still expand the map to the left and move that Italian airfield to the upper left corner of the map (to "Sicily"). Then the planes will have to catch up with the convoy!
The yellow group can fly at once on the first turn. This is, conventionally speaking, an airfield in "Crete". I promised historical realism.


And an addendum to the previous question

On occasion, content designers have specified Starting Fuel Point (SFP) values greater than a unit's Listed Fuel Capacity (LFC). That's Overcapacitation.
For the purposes of THIS post, it's still assumed that BOTH SFP and LFC values are POSITIVE.

In responding, I was somehow only thinking of land units. But there are air units too!
I looked at my scenario now and remembered that Fuel Overcapacitation principle I used here for several AI aircraft placed over the sea.
In general, I not use exactly Overcapacitation, but made for this scenario other units with the similar combat parameters, decreased MVT=6-7 and increased MAX FUEL.
The point made is that an AI-led slow air unit doesn't go anywhere until it sees a target close to it. It has fuel. The analogy is an airplane from an aircraft carrier. We don't have to see this unit fly to the aircraft carrier and then fly back, do we?
Especially since this will never happen under the wise guidance of AI!
And these planes start to interfere very badly with the player's fleet from the moment the fleet arrives in the area where the tethered planes are grazing in the sky. (Not visible on screenshot due to land mode). These AI aircraft are just in the path of the green air group.
The fate of these AI aircrafts is generally clear. They will die while performing a combat mission. But what is interesting is that some surviving STR=1-3 units, which the player has no opportunity to finish at once, fly to the land friendly airfield together with the rest of the fleet. The fleet, moving, provides air units with a visible corridor to the airfield. Sometimes one aircraft unit even flies to defend its carrier during combat! What a joy! It is clear that the aircraft carrier in my scenario is a very harmful thing (Anti-aircraft Dual mode and Spotting = 6), and should not live long. But the very fact is observed - the AI aircraft's AMMO is replenished!

[Lettos]

Updated poster:


The thickness of the arrows on the map denotes the effectiveness of the attack and is purely my subjective imaginative picture of the processes taking place.
Every admiral (and especially PGF admirals) have their own understanding of what casualties will be inflicted per attack and in general for the entire scenario.
That is, two subjective factors:
- Unit strength
- the speed (in turns) at which the unit will be destroyed.

The Naval Attack minus Ground (or ASW) Defense tables provide information for reflection.
You can make a naval battle very time-stretched. Then GD (or CD/ASW) is almost equal to NA. And it will be possible to attack some enemy submarine 10 turns in a row. I personally like it better when naval combat is intense and fast. Again, I am captivated by realism!
Fast means it's still not going to happen in one turn.

The naval units Naval attack and GD-CD/ASW parameters should display some understanding of what the equivalent strength of a warship is.

I write further for advanced modders who understand that the PGF model and some guns, torpedoes and armor are of course somehow related, but there are no direct analogies in the model! To determine unit equivalence, a unit of measure is required.

I'll just write my train of thought, cite my findings, and you'll have information you may not have had yet.

As a unit of measurement, I chose ... a "Destroyer". And not just any destroyer, but one that I am happy with in the PGF model.
The destroyer has parameters: Naval Attack = 18, Ground Defense = 3. (In vanilla Panzer General were NA=16, GD=3). If NA=18, the modder has room to tune the destroyer's attack strength against the submarine. Later tuning will be done by adjusting the GD parameter of Submarine.

After familiarizing myself with a mass of material on the armament and combat tactics of ships, I adopted as a working version following combat rating :
Destroyer = measurement unit
Light Cruiser = 2 Destroyers
Heavy Cruiser = 2 Light Cruisers = 4 Destroyers
Battleship = 2 Heavy Cruisers = 4 Light Cruisers = 8 Destroyers
Torpedo boat not investigated for now. Sure, something weaker than Destroyer.
Battle Cruiser, Pocket Battleship -sure, somewhere between Battleship and Heavy Cruiser as it exist now in any eqp.

And the second thing that had to be determined in advance was the speed of the sea combat. At this point, I've accepted that it takes 4-5 turns before one of the tested groups of ships will be destroyed.

I made a lot of tests more times repeating combats such as 2 Battleships vs 16 Destroyers, 4 Heavy Cruisers vs 8 Light Cruisers etc.etc.
An important observation about the PGF game model: if, for example, by adjusting the parameters, you achieve, for example, almost complete equality 4 Light Cruisers = 8 Destroyers, and at the same time 2 Heavy Cruisers defeat 4 Light Cruisers by a small but noticeable margin, this DOES NOT mean that 2 Heavy Cruisers defeats 8 Destroyers! At first glance, it's unexpected... But, realizing that there is also the Suppression factor in the attack, and a rather large random in determining the final INI, and the dependence of the results of several (3 or even 7) subsequent attacks on the success of the first-second attack.... our reality is a little more complicated than 2+2.

The tests involved:
Destroyer INI=3, Light Cruiser INI =4, Heavy Cruiser INI =5, Battleship INI =7. (To leave INI space for Pocket Battleship or Battle Cruiser).
The side with the least number of ships (i.e. side with more powerful ships) always attacked first.

I've achieved a precarious balance of PGF naval combat model.

2 Battleships are always stronger than 16 Destroyers
2 Battleships are stronger than 8 Light Cruisers
2 Battleships are equal to 4 Heavy Cruisers. "Equal" mean that the result of the battle one time will be in favor of Battleship, and the other time combat will be won by Heavy Cruisers. If both Battleships will have EXP=200 (2 stars) they will win seems without exceptions.

2 Heavy Cruisers are always stronger than 4 Light Cruisers
2 Heavy Cruisers are always weaker than 8 Destroyers

4 Light Cruisers are equal to 8 Destroyers

Parameters:

Destroyer ------ NA = 18 --- GD = 3 ---- INI = 3
Light Cruiser -- NA = 22 --- GD = 8 ---- INI = 4
Heavy Cruiser - NA = 28 --- GD = 16 --- INI = 5
Battleship ------ NA = 36 --- GD = 22 --- INI = 7


I hope my post will be helpful to someone!

[Lettos]

Again, as a matter of subjective personal opinion:

Submarine should not live long if it is heavily attacked by destroyers. Even if she survives, damage is inevitable and she will return to base for repairs. This realism in the game for a Submarine means sailing off the game map.

So as a working version, I take the standard Panzer General and increase the NA a bit:
Submarine Ground Defense = 2
Destroyer Naval attack = 18

This ratio means 50% loss for the Submarine. Given the probability to Evade = 50%, the total = 25% loss per attack.
4 destroyer attacks before leaving the map. Looks realistic to me.

[HexCode]

TEMPORARY APPEARANCE...

Intended Audience: # Lettos # & # Radoye #

In-Game Fuel Point Exhaustion

This is straightforward PGF-SSI territory. Moving on...

Starting Fuel Point (SFP) Value Zero ?

Case I: Unit Listed Fuel Capacity (LFC) Value -- Positive

Technically impossible to set up. PGF's engine interprets a value ZERO (0) to signify granting the unit SFPs equal to the unit's LFC.

Case II: Unit Listed Fuel Capacity (LFC) Value -- Zero

This does NOT accomplish the task. Instead, it grants the unit license to be moving around the map without ever being subject to any FP availability constraints.

Is the Feature Relevant to Custom Content Design ?

This topic comes up in modding discussions from time to time. In the very distant past (i.e., PG1-DOS), lively debates were taking place about SSI's content design choice to render Air Xport Class units "operationally agnostic" regarding FP availability constraints... Personally, I feel a bit uncomfortable when it comes to unit Types which, despite obvious, important representation realities, are nevertheless rendered "operationally agnostic".

[Lettos]

This topic comes up in modding discussions from time to time. In the very distant past (i.e., PG1-DOS), lively debates were taking place about SSI's content design choice to render Air Xport Class units "operationally agnostic" regarding FP availability constraints... Personally, I feel a bit uncomfortable when it comes to unit Types which, despite obvious, important representation realities, are nevertheless rendered "operationally agnostic".

Yeah, you're right. Player's Air Transports with unlimited FUEL is something wrong. But we can leave zero fuel values for AI Air transports.

Infantry - well, let them march around the globe.... Or should we give them some FUEL value instead of zero, for example 42, so that they can have a break from daily marches at least once every two weeks with MVT=3?
But to make insurgents that will start moving somewhere behind enemy lines in 10-20-30 turns, infantry must be given non-zero MAX FUEL. This will already be the topic of negative FUEL. But for it to work, zero fuel must be taken away from the infantry. Two related topics.

[Lettos]

viewtopic.php?f=95&t=470&start=100#p18416
Poster updated!
----

So, value parity between the different types of warships is somehow achieved. But how will the same ships behave in a duel against each other?

Parameters:

Destroyer ------ NA = 18 --- GD = 3 ---- INI = 3
Light Cruiser -- NA = 22 --- GD = 8 ---- INI = 4
Heavy Cruiser - NA = 28 --- GD = 16 --- INI = 5
Battleship ------ NA = 36 --- GD = 22 --- INI = 7

I'll tell you right away - without additional tuning and some other simple tricks, there is no balance in these duels, neither with those parameters vanilla set in Panzer General and then cloned in PGF, nor in these new parameters.
Dueling equal ships is a sad story in the model we have.

Let's look at the results of the test naval combats with vanilla parameters (in mode Human vs Human):

1) 5 Battleships vs 5 Battleships. (50 STR vs 50 STR). Attacker won. Survived STR = 44!!! It's a complete rout!
2) At the same time, the other combat yields almost balanced results:
5 Battleships attacked 10 Heavy cruisers (50 STR vs 100 STR). Attacker won. Survived STR = 22. It's almost acceptable.

Do you remember those 2 stars that the Allied AI-led fleet had in Panzer General? They were given to the British navy not only in recognition of its military merits. These stars are a balancing tool for the naval combat model.

Same combats, but attacked side's ships have 2-stars EXP=200:
1) 5 Battleships vs 5 Battleships. (50 STR vs 50 STR). Attacker won. Survived STR = 29. Well, one has to assume that this can already be considered a balance...
2) 5 Battleships attacked 10 Heavy cruisers (50 STR vs 100 STR). Attacker's defeat. Attacked side's survived STR = 8. You could call it complete parity.
But it's too early to rejoice, and there's nothing to rejoice about ...
3) because 3rd test done.
5 Battleships attacked 15 Light Cruisers. Guess who won? It's a complete horrible defeat of battleships by cruisers! STR = 97 survived from 150.

It is impossible to create a complete balance everywhere. In one place you put a patch on, so in another place it ripped and the hole is huge!

The cause of the problem is obvious. This is an incredibly powerful bonus that the attacker gets the Initiative=99 vs INI=0 for the target. The first hit almost never gets a return hit (its probability is probably the same minimum 5%).

Naturally, in such a model 5 powerful ships will lose to 15 not so powerful ships, because on the first turn they will hit only 5 out of 15, and in the second half-turn 10 out of 15 will hit the battleships, with each hit reducing their STR, and then the first affected five ships will already hit.

Rule Capital ship vs Capital Ship attacker INI = 99 defender INI = 0 is creating a catastrophic imbalance of naval combat model.
I don't know if there was such a rule in Panzer General. I can try to check with tests. But this is purely theoretical interest, because the problem should be solved now and in PGF.

As a matter of fact, it turns out that Capital Ships must have some eqp INI value to defeat destroyers and defend against aircraft. But for their mutual combat INI eqp parameter doesn't matter at all, if we want to see a retaliatory strike.

I see only one direction to solve the problem: introduce a INI Cap for Terrain Type Ocean, and assign it a very small value, approximately = "2" or "3". Test it with different parameters, comparing vanilla with new ones.
And then add the EXP stars because Rule INI-99-0 not affecting EXP INI. There is 5-stars (i.e. INI = 0-3) space to tweak model.

=================
FIRST TESTS : encouraging results

Terrain INI Cap = 3
Vanilla parameters

1) 6 Battleships 1 star attacked 6 Battleships 3 stars. Clash of titans. Parity!
2) 5 Battleships 1 star attacked 15 Light Cruisers 2 stars. Light Cruisers won, but only 50 survived.
=================

Everything was beautiful and perfect for the Capital Ships class. But it turns out that a Capital Ship with terrain INI Cap cannot retaliate against a Destroyer class unit when the Destroyer attacks. And the whole beautiful scheme fell apart at this point because of one completely unintended nuance of the program.


Added:
An important addition must be made here: Capital Ships can't retaliate if Destroyer Fire Range is greater than zero. Terrain INI Cap works here and doesn't interfere with anything!
In initial tests, when determining unit equivalency, I used a class 12 Capital Ship as a Destroyer with attack and defense parameters like a familiar Destroyer but with Fire range = 1.

[Radoye]

Are you doing AI vs AI test or what?

[Lettos]

Are you doing AI vs AI test or what?

No. Checked results un tests and by Ctrl+Click

Lettos wrote:
Let's look at the results of the test naval combats with vanilla parameters (in mode Human vs Human):

[Lettos]

How the tests are carried out

In the first phase, the goal of the tests is to figure out the image of the world (PGF model) we have been living in since Panzer General.
A test scenario is made, units are arranged, and combat conditions are simulated.
Several units attack other units, another group engages another group, and so on. This is very painstaking long process. And, believe me, even the person who created the AI of our model hardly realized how it works. There are so many nuances...
At the second phase, the parameters are adjusted, and then there are numerous tests again. Adjusting again, testing. Adjusting, testing. Cycle.

By setting my parameters, I want to achieve in the model my image of the world. I want to see what, according to my understanding, happened in reality in the case of such a particular combat encounter. Change your understanding - your approach to adjusting the parameters will change (this sometimes happens). Without understanding, or with distorted understanding, we get a beautiful picture of the battle of "griffins with dragons", "crocodiles with Leviathan" and so on. Although the icons on the screen still tell the player that he sees Battleships, Bombers etc.

Speaking of naval battles, there are a lot of calculations and rules. Admirals and navy officers know what ballistics is, how one ship differs from another, why in this case you can engage in a battle with a chance of victory, and in another case you have to retreat... calculating the odds.
This ship is stronger than that one, and this one is equal to that one, and there is the equivalent of 1=3, and so on.

I already wrote about my image of the naval combat world:

After familiarizing myself with a mass of material on the armament and combat tactics of ships, I adopted as a working version following combat rating :
Destroyer = measurement unit
Light Cruiser = 2 Destroyers
Heavy Cruiser = 2 Light Cruisers = 4 Destroyers
Battleship = 2 Heavy Cruisers = 4 Light Cruisers = 8 Destroyers
Torpedo boat not investigated for now. Sure, something weaker than Destroyer.
Battle Cruiser, Pocket Battleship -sure, somewhere between Battleship and Heavy Cruiser as it exist now in any eqp.

That being said, I have additional requests:

- If one Capital Ship went out to attack another Capital Ship, a retaliatory strike must be present. Indeed, how long should one think on a ship if one sees a shell burst in the sea one cable length from the side?
- the fight has to happen fast enough, in a few turns
- the one who attacks first has a slight advantage. He was the first to spot the target, the first to give the command to calculate the arithmetic of the salvo. This advantage in real combat quickly disappears, but it is there. In the understanding of the model, this is INI.
- there must be some unpredictability of naval combat (within general statistical patterns). There's room for a lot of randomness here. Fog at sea, sudden storm, accidental personnel error, technical malfunctions, etc.

According to the rules just described, I cannot accept that PGF's axiom "If Capital Ship attacks Capital Ship its INI=99 and defender's INI=0".

Fortunately, this axiom can be partially ignored, if not completely overridden, with technical tricks.

Thanks to HexCode, we know a way to set so called INI Cap on a certain type of Terrain.
TERRAIN INITIATIVE CAP TABLE
viewtopic.php?f=100&t=551#p9047

Logic and numerous experiments suggested that for further finer tests we should clearly fix Ocean INI Cap = 1.
This overrides the INI=99 vs INI=0 rule. From this point on, the work on parameter setting turns from a lottery into a meaningful process.

In the continuation of the topic, new parameters will be discussed and retrospective analysis will be done based on tests of those vanilla parameters that we are used to since the days of Panzer General. There is a lot to be surprised about them!

[Lettos]

I want to warn you right away that the further content of the topic has nothing to do with the common understanding of modding. There is no place for any emotions like that here:
- Why did you give this unit two EXP stars in the scenario?
- Well, because he was very heroic in real life...
- And why does the unit have such parameters in eqp compared to another similar unit?
- Because it had four more guns!

Forget all of that for the duration of reading this topic!

In this context we will also consider how to give AUX units (we are talking about them only, ships are unlikely to ever appear in CORE, especially after reading the information from the topic) a bonus for heroism and for additional guns. But this is all very strange in the traditional sense.

Let's go, experienced and advanced modders?

Setting INI Cap = 1 solves the problem of how to cancel the insane INI=99 bonus of the attacking unit. You could set some sane INI threshold. But the problem is that INI=zero for the defender remains.

Therefore - forget about INI for Capital ships in case of their mutual combat. Capital ships need INI only when they are attack other ship Classes (Destroyer, Air Carrier, Sea Transport) or are attacked by Destroyer or aircraft. But for Capital Ships naval life it turns out that INI=1 is enough.

Capital Ships INI for combat vs Capital Ships will be set with EXP + INI Cap=1. There is no other option at the moment.

Light Cruiser INI = 4 -- mean INI in eqp = at least 1 ( "1" will be taken from eqp with applied INI Cap) and EXP 500 (INI=3). 1+3 = 4
Heavy Cruiser INI = 5 -- EXP = 700 (INI=4). 1+4 = 5
Battleship INI = 6 -- EXP = 900 (INI=5). 1+5=6

Destroyer INI in tests was equal "3" in eqp.

Next phase:
We now clearly know what EXP level a unit will have in a scenario. We should take this into account when setting Naval Attack, Ground Defense, then Close Defense (Anti-Ship Warfare, ASW) parameters in the eqp file.

Note: FPGE understands correctly EXP up to 900. FPGE will show EXP Level =9 and will allow actions with unit correctly (i.e. "Place" option). But first time you will need to describe EXP level in pgscn file.

Now parameters that will make the model's behavior in naval combat balanced and logical.
Before I show the parameters, I want to make an important point about fine-tuning the units in the scenario.
We no longer have the ability to manipulate EXP levels. It is in this case part of the eqp parameters. It cannot be changed! Well, you can, of course - but don't be surprised by the absolutely different results of the battle comparing with proposed solution.
The peculiarities of this case (due to the highly obscure 99 vs 00 rule) are such that the parameters in eqp leave almost no room for common unit modding. The system there is so subtle that changing some parameter even by "1" means a big change in the battle results. If anyone is interested, I'll write about it in detail later.
Moreover, to fine tune the behavior of the model, I also used the over-STR parameter of the unit (in this case it partially successfully replaces the usual EXP stars). But in fact - yes, to recognize the heroic merits of a unit (we are talking about ships and submarines only!), its combat experience, it is necessary to use STR, not EXP. And it won't mean that one ship suddenly became 20 yards longer than another

One more note. The parameters are made for playing against AI, taking into account that the player will find AI units first, plan an attack and then attack first. I proceeded from the principle that an advanced player will not allow the AI to suddenly find his units first on the map and attack, for example, the player's very important battleships and heavy cruisers.

Now, the eqp parameters:
-----------------NA--GD---INI-----EXP Level
Battleship---------20---8----6----------900
Heavy Cruiser-----17---5----5----------700
Light Cruiser-----15----4----4----------600
Destroyer---------13----3----3---------500

Actually, you could not give Destroyer any EXP, but make an adjustment to the parameters in eqp. But if the entire AI fleet has five stars on the screen and the Destroyer has no stars, would that be good from a visual standpoint?

STR Parameters:
Player's units:
Battleship STR=11
Heavy Cruiser, Light Cruiser, Destroyer STR = 12
AI units
Battleship STR=13
Heavy Cruiser, Light Cruiser, Destroyer STR = 14

As an illustration of how important it is to set STR parameters accurately.
In the tests, one Battleship STR=11 (as if the player's side) fought 8 Destroyers. I played for the second side as well, i.e. Human vs Human mode. If you give all Destroyers STR=13, they win one battle out of seven against a Battleship. If all Destroyers will have STR=14, the "Attack Broken off!" cases immediately decreases, and Destroyers win 3-4 times out of 10. That's a huge difference compared with 1 victory in 7 combats!

You can see in the parameters how little room is left for different types of the same light cruisers, or Battle Cruisers. But you have to remember that in this model, changing NA and GD by one really means a lot for the results of the battle.
By the way, vanilla parameters did not give space either: Destroyer NA = 16, Battleship NA = 18, Light Cruiser NA = 12.

[HexCode]

TEMPORARY APPEARANCE...

Intended Audience: # Lettos # & # Radoye #

Once a content designer utilizes negative integers, he finds himself squarely in "design-for-effect" territory.

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

Relevant Play System Feature Description

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

2) A unit which enters a scenario with a NEGATIVE SFP value CANNOT move in-game until its FP status turns positive (if ever) due to sufficient Resupply.

3) In-game, BOTH Resupply Only AND resupply by means of Replacements Procurement algorithms work like algebraic... charms. Wow !

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

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

6) A negative FP does NOT saddle the unit with the combat disadvantage associated with ZERO FPs !

Is the Feature Relevant to Custom Content Design ?

What I've just described is "Algebraic Undercapacitation".

A) Air units plummet to their doom at the end of their half-turn unless they're adjacent to / directly over friendly Airfields (or directly over friendly Air Carrier Class units). Barring multiple enemy target unit adjacency, Airfield / Air Carrier "adjacency" wipes out an air unit's negative FPs.

This feature has rather limited application. That said, a content designer may place such units on the map with the clear understanding that such units will either disappear at the end of their half-turn OR get (usually fully) resupplied.

B) Naval units cannot EVER move unless they are in a friendly port, in which case (barring multiple enemy target unit adjacency), their FPs will "eventually" achieve positive status.

A content designer may place such units on the map with the clear understanding that the units will NEVER move. Of course, placing such units in a friendly port technically enables the designer to delay their "eventual" departure.

C) Land units cannot move until their FP status "eventually" turns POSITIVE. The most welcome application (i.e., "delayed activation") of this feature has already been discussed.

[Lettos]

B) Naval units cannot EVER move unless they are in a friendly port, in which case (barring multiple enemy target unit adjacency), their FPs will eventually revert to LFC status.

A content designer may place such units on the map with the clear understanding that the units will NEVER move. Of course, placing such units in a friendly port technically enables the designer to delay their eventual departure.

Yeah, I had the thought of putting some ports on the map and putting some negative SFP ships in them. Do a delayed start. Have to check if these ships will stay in the ports even when they get their full LFP.

C) Land units cannot move until their FP status eventually turns POSITIVE. The welcome application (i.e., delayed activation) of this feature has already been discussed.

Yes, this is by far the most basic, and also proven use of negative SFP.
It's a good and easily implementable chance to give AI decent replacements instead of that weird set that AI buys at will. Event "Reinforcements have arrived!"

I've written before that I've come around to the idea of creating rebels somewhere behind AI lines. Infantry with LFP>0. AI never explores its own territory, it is completely devoid of curiosity. Put the rebels somewhere on the very edge of the map, and activate them when needed in the course of the scenario (notional example - on turn 15 in a scenario of 30 turns).

[Lettos]

Let's turn to the results shown in the tests by the PGF model with the new NA and GD ship parameters.

In the tests, the attacking side made the first strike with Capital Ship class ships from a distance greater than the Fire Range of the defending side. For example, a Heavy Cruiser fired at a Light Cruiser from its maximum Range=4 to avoid being hit back. After the first hit, the attacking ship would close in on the targets, and then the entire battle would take place at ranges that allowed both sides to automatically retaliate.

1. What we have now?

I'll start with what we have so far.
Vanilla ship parameters are being tested. Tested classic situation in Panzer General/ PGF - emulated that player's ships have EXP=0, and AI ships have familiar 2 stars (EXP=200). STR of units = 10.
Here are the results:


First of all, where's the intrigue of the fight? The results are so stable that they resemble not a naval battle, but a train traveling along the tracks from station to station. If you are supposed to win, for example, in a battle of four Heavy Cruisers against two Battleships, the Heavy Cruisers will always win.
I ran some tests and in a situation where EXP=0 for both sides. I was hoping to see some random. The results of several tests can be seen in the table. It is clear that if destroyers even with EXP=200 could not do anything with Capital Ships, then there is no point in testing their battle when both sides have EXP=0.
Secondly, the combat value ratio of the ships raises a lot of questions. I see from the test results that the most powerful and efficient ship class is the Light Cruiser. Heavy cruiser is also strong.
Battleship is some kind of strange floating entity.... (by PG/PGF logic, only light and heavy cruisers should have been fought in WW2! Why the belligerents built Battleships is unclear )
A destroyer in general is something completely useless in combat...

Conclusions: lack of unpredictability, and wrong unit ratio. At all.

2. What has been done.

In the two tables you can see the results of test battles conducted with the new unit parameters and two overSTR combinations:

(Edited: --- My apologizes: in previous table I found mistake in test. New correct tests performed and table updated.----)

I liked the second option better when Defender's STR=14.

General Conclusions:
1. Probabilistic scatter of results with overall statistical balance is obtained.
2. The stated goal of parameter modification has been achieved - ship combat value ratios represent a balanced system. There is no one ship type that is too strong.

And now that you have a fine instrument in your hands, you can start unbalancing it in different directions and see what you get. What is the effect of reducing EXP by at least 100, what happens if you increase STR from 14 to 15-17. You can work comfortably!

[Lettos]

Next, under the title of Admiral's tool posts - Practical outcomes, I will publish the practical results of consciously introducing imbalance into the model. It takes some time to run the tests.

First result.

In the tests conducted, stronger ships with lower STR attacked first. The situation known from practical scenarios, when the player has slightly weaker units than the AI, was simulated.
Due to the first strike, the player gains a slight advantage that generally balances the odds of winning a battle of equal sets of ships.
What happens if the player makes the first strike but has weaker ships? I.e., turn the situation mirror image:
8 Destroyers STR=12 attack 1 Battleship STR=13,
4 Light Cruisers STR=12 attack 2 Heavy Cruisers STR=14 etc?

No spreadsheets, just conclusions. The chances of winning are halved from the existing conditional 50%, i.e. to 25%. Only one battle out of four will be won, and the victory will come at a very high price.
This is a good philosophical principle of naval combat - do not attack stronger enemy units with your weaker units.

According to the tests, the defending side's thresholds are approximately the same, so that victory is guaranteed to the attacker:

2 Heavy Cruisers (2x12) attack Battleship. Battleship STR should be not more than 10.
4 Light Cruisers (4x12) attack 2 Heavy Cruisers. Each Heavy Cruiser's STR should be not more than 10.
8 Light Cruisers (8x12) attack 2 Battleships. Threshold STR=10 is very dangerous for Light Cruisers to won. Much better is to attack Battleships with STR=8-9.
8 Destroyers(8x12) attack 1 Battleship. Dangerous threshold STR=8. Much better to initiate attack vs Battleship STR=7.

To me, this model behavior seems clearly consistent with real combat situations. When first an enemy powerful ship was damaged by aircraft, then by its own heavy ships, and lastly by destroyers.

At the same time check the duel 10 Battleships STR=11 attack 10 Battleships STR=13.
It looks like despite the right of first strike, weaker STR=11 Battleships still lose more often. If they win, then with heavy losses among their ships.
Results of five tests: -60 / -79 / -8 / +14 / +38.

[Lettos]

Since it is much more effective for the naval combat model when Destroyer Fire range = 0, we need to somehow display its guns when Destroyer as an artillery battery fires at land targets.
I am testing Dual purpose unit.
Destroyer Class + Organic transport Capital Ship class.

The idea is to have the AI not switch the Destroyer to Organic Transport mode while it is in the open ocean and not off shore.
I'm thinking of doing this for now:
Destroyer Class - all the usual parameters except SA/HA = something minimal. Fire range = 0.
Organic Transport - SA/HA parameters as in the existing Destroyer, other parameters are also the same, but very low NA parameter. And Fire range = 2, or maybe 3 (if Destroyer in reality had 152mm guns).

As a kind of simulation of this process: while Destroyer is at sea and is a guard ship and combat ship, it will be in Destroyer Class mode. When it gets close to shore to shoot at land targets, it loses vigilance at sea and is not engaged in guarding and searching for submarines. He is easier for a submarine to attack.

By the way, if the Destroyer is turned into a floating artillery battery, you can reduce its Spotting to "2". I'm tired of seeing Destroyer browsing a large space on land.

To distinguish them visually, I made an icon like this:



Two other units can be seen using icons made on a similar principle.

[Lettos]

And now that you have a fine instrument in your hands, you can start unbalancing it in different directions and see what you get. What is the effect of reducing EXP by at least 100, what happens if you increase STR from 14 to 15-17. You can work comfortably!

I have increased the STR of the units being attacked (assumed AI opponent) from "14" to "16". While at equilibrium there were 19-20 victories in thirty test battles, after increasing STR out of 30 battles the attacking side (player) won only four.

For comparison, the result of a simple test: 25 units fighting 25 units. They fight strictly as 25 pairs, one against the other, until one of the fighters is completely destroyed. The units are identical. Statistically, the chances of winning are 50%-50%.

I put powerful tanks with big HA and GD against each other to emulate ships in terms of strength.
If you give all tanks of one side 1 star EXP, the chances of the weaker side winning decreases from 12.5/25 to 2/25.

I think it's safe to assume that in the proposed naval combat model, increasing STR by +2 on enemy ships is roughly equivalent to giving an enemy unit 1 star EXP in a normal land scenario.

[Lettos]

Previous posts about ship combat have already demanded a philosophical justification for the principles of combat created by the algorithm calculating results and units parameters.

The philosophical principles can be summarized as follows:
Capital ship vs Capital ship or Destroyer - this is not tennis, when the ball flies strictly from one half of the field to the other. It is more like Ping pong with 2 balls.

Before adjusting the parameters of Destroyer vs Submarine and Submarine vs Destroyer combat, it is necessary to think about and define their combat philosophy.

Observations and reflections based on books read.

Destroyer's attack on Submarine is usually tennis and on rare occasions Ping pong with two balls. Yes, sometimes Submarine counterattacked. But it was a rare occasion.

Submarine attacking Destroyer is an odd case. If a Submarine hits a Destroyer with torpedoes, even a sinking Destroyer will have time to let the other ships in its fleet know that a Submarine is operating in that particular area. Retribution is very possible.
If the submarine attacks the Destroyer and misses with its torpedoes, the torpedoes will be spotted. The submarine will immediately turn from hunter to prey.
Well, there were rare cases when a submarine fired torpedoes at a very large and valuable ship, and a small Destroyer put itself under torpedo attack to save a Battleship, Heavy Cruiser or Air Carrier. Destroyer was killed, Submarine recorded the destroyed Destroyer in her Victory Statistics.
Another category of cases is when a submarine took out a damaged Destroyer.
The general philosophical concept in this case is Ping pong with two balls again.

We already have a basic parameter table for the Ping pong with two balls battle model.

-----------------------NA--GD--INI-----EXP Level---STR(Player)-----STR(AI)
Battleship----------20---8----6---------900-----------11--------------13
Heavy Cruiser-----17---5----5---------700------------13-------------14
Light Cruiser------15----4----4---------600-----------12-------------14
Destroyer----------13----3----3---------500-----------12-------------14

Having conducted the tests, it is not difficult to determine the parameters that fit the philosophical concept of Destroyer vs Submarine and Submarine vs Destroyer combat. Submarine EXP=500, STR=12, NA=12, GD=0. Destroyer CD/ASW=6. In this case, both player units and AI units will have the same CD/ASW and submarine parameters.
Applying these parameters, the result is a fight like this:
Destroyer attacks a submarine without a knockback about 4 times out of five (no Evade!). The submarine strikes back rarely, 1:4. The submarine's hit loss = 5-7. Remembering the 50% chance to Evade, the submarine is statistically destroyed in 4 attacks.
If a submarine attacks a Destroyer, the loss to combat result is statistically roughly STR=5-6-7. The submarine has a +1 INI advantage. Here in the test attacks you can see both "Attack Broken Off!" and the submarine's strike without a response from Destroyer, and equal destruction of two units. Complete unpredictability within the limits of overall statistical probability.

Question: what does the submarine need the CD/ASW parameter for? I have not seen a situation where this submarine parameter is used to calculate combat results. Even when it is surrounded by six Destroyers, the Ground Defense parameter is still used.
Is the CD/ASW submarine parameter superfluous in the model?

Submarine attacking Capital Ship. One way tennis but instead of a ball live grenade used. The only question is how much STR the submarine destroys in one hit. For the model under development, the attack losses and CD/ASW parameters are:

Battleship ------ losses STR=4 --- ASW=9 (i.e. Battleship STR=11-13 will be "killed" in 3 attacks)
Heavy Cruiser - losses STR=6 --- ASW=7 (i.e. two attacks to "kill" Heavy Cruiser)
Light Cruiser -- losses STR=8 ----ASW=2 (i.e. after first attack Light Cruiser will have STR=4-6-8. "Killing" in one and half attack)

Submarine attacking Sea Transport. One problem is here. EXP of loaded land unit is also the EXP of Sea Transport. The simplicity of the model borders on insanity...
Let's say I want Sea Transport to be destroyed by a single submarine attack. Yes, I can set the CD/ASW parameter of the transport accordingly to the desired battle result. But, if I set this parameter, let's say for a transport with STR=10 EXP=0, it won't work properly if the Sea transport is carrying a land unit STR=12 EXP=2!

So the solution is to create different Sea transports in the eqp file. Their CD/ASW will be from "0" to "-5" (exactly, minus five!).
For example,
Sea transport for land unit STR=10 EXP=0 should have CD/ASW = 0.
Sea transport for land unit STR=12 EXP=2 should have CD/ASW = -4 or -5. Etc.

The Sea Transport Ground Defense parameter and S/T-Boat, Air Carrier, and attacking ships with aircraft remain to be considered.