TB Values Naval wrong math issues

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

TB Values Naval wrong math issues

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> Tech Support >> TB Values Naval wrong math issues

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

TB Values Naval wrong math issues - 1/30/2022 7:55:42 AM

xhoel

Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

There are a few issues with the Naval TB values math and logic.

On T10 the req was at 85%. On T11, after transferring a special Naval Only Group to fix the issue the requirement dropped to 69%. Thats because the math isnt working.

First of all I dont see how the patrol (base) value dropped from 1.6 to 1.3, when I have specifically added 30 patrol planes whose sole job is to do naval patrols.

Second, notice the percentage math issues:

On T10 the math was correct for bombers: 40% of 1.6 is indeed 0.64.
But not for fighters: 20% of 13.1 is 2.62 and not 0.32 as the game says.

On T11 the bomber math is wrong: 40% of 3.1 is 1.24, not as the game calculates 0.52.
The math for fighters is also wrong again.

Not to mention that even simple additions of the subcategories are wrong (T10 is ok): For T11 1.3+0.26+0.52= 2.08 not 2.8
This seems to be a display issue since the percentage shown is correct (2.08/3= 69%) but the math on screen is clearly wrong: 2.8/3 is 93%.

Please look into this. Its annoying to take penalties because of math issues in TBs.

T10:

T11:

_____________________________

AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator

Post #: 1

RE: TB Values Naval wrong math issues - 2/1/2022 6:05:46 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

That is a display issue in panel 2, as you actually have a Naval value of 2.08, not 2.8. Add 1.3+.26+.52 amd you sum to 2.08, which is 69% of the requirement. As for what's in parenthesis, those are the values you have in the TBs, not what is contributing. So you have a lot of fighter and bomber power that is not counting toward the naval value. I'll bug the display issue, as I have a save that shows this happens whenever the value is between .01 and .09. Thanks.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to xhoel)

Post #: 2

RE: TB Values Naval wrong math issues - 2/1/2022 6:27:37 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

Is it possible to add this?

1. Maximum value that can be added for specific type, Fighter, Night Fighter, Bomber, when we are looking at Naval and etc.
Right now we have fighter (20%). And only because xoel has much more fighters we can see that they can only contribute 0.26 to a Naval requirements. If there would be not enough fighters then this value would be for example 0.1, or any other. Thus player can not know what is the maximum possible value. And personally I have to open calculator each time to calculate it. 1.3*0.2 = 0.26. Multiple it for each TBs and for each type and get a lot of headache.
2. It is impossible to say how much CV ground elements (unless they are already present in this TB to compare) will add during transfer. With planes it is even worse. There is no CV for them at all.

So lets say I need 20 CV for the air day fighters. And right now I have 35. How many planes can I move out of this TB? It can be pretty tricky to move groups 1 by one.
It gets even worse when values are in a closer range. As you can easily get below requirements.

< Message edited by Stamb -- 2/1/2022 6:29:10 PM >

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 3

RE: TB Values Naval wrong math issues - 2/1/2022 6:35:50 PM

xhoel

Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

@Joel: I think you missed a big chunk of my post. Either that or I dont understand the TB system. The 2.08 issue I already stated that is just a display issue. I am glad to see it is added to the bug list.

The bigger issue is the math one with the bombers and fighters. Take a look at the second picture. I have 3.10 bomber "strength" in the TB. As far as I understand, the Bomber (40%) section means that only 40% of the bomber value will be added to the Naval values. Is this correct? If yes, then 40% of 3.10 is not 0.52.

Now the issue is twofold: One the math one.

Second the fact that on T10 I only had 1.60 bomber strength and got 0.64 from it added to the naval section.
On T11, with a lot more bombers in the TB (3.10), I only got 0.52 value.

How is this possible? Something looks wrong. Please take another look at it.

< Message edited by xhoel -- 2/1/2022 6:38:07 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Stamb)

Post #: 4

RE: TB Values Naval wrong math issues - 2/1/2022 6:41:16 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

As I understand it:
you have to take base value: 1.30
bombers can contribute maximum 40% of it: 1.30 * 0.4 = 0.52
This is what you see

(3.10) is you overall CV for your bombers. But only 0.52 are used. See above. So you can move 3.10 - 0.52 = 2.58

Now how do you convert 2.58 to a planes? I have no idea, and that is why I want to add CV for planes in my previous post

(in reply to xhoel)

Post #: 5

RE: TB Values Naval wrong math issues - 2/1/2022 6:41:59 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

It's 40% of the base that can be added (the patrol vaule is the "base"), or 40% of 1.3 in this case.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to xhoel)

Post #: 6

RE: TB Values Naval wrong math issues - 2/1/2022 6:42:27 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

Probably you need more patrol planes in order to fix naval requirements.

(in reply to Stamb)

Post #: 7

RE: TB Values Naval wrong math issues - 2/1/2022 6:49:06 PM

xhoel

Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

Ok thanks for clarifying. But how is this patrol base determined? There are no patrol planes in Italy, just 1 single Tactical Bomber group. That one had 44 planes on T10 and 45 on T11. Why did the base change so much? Is it because of fighter bomber losses?

The group I sent to the Italian TB is the IV./KG 200. It is a naval only LB group. Its not patrol true, but I dont see why it adds basically nothing to the value? Does the game not offer a bonus for Naval only groups? They should be treated like patrol ones.

_____________________________

(in reply to xhoel)

Post #: 8

RE: TB Values Naval wrong math issues - 2/1/2022 7:10:41 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

Maybe recon are naval patrol planes?

In general I also have problems with understand what planes contribute to which area. There are also some confusion with bombers, as some of them seems not to contribute to bombers requirements.

< Message edited by Stamb -- 2/1/2022 7:11:41 PM >

(in reply to xhoel)

Post #: 9

RE: TB Values Naval wrong math issues - 2/1/2022 7:33:31 PM

xhoel

Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Maybe recon are naval patrol planes?

Nope, their profiles are recon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb
In general I also have problems with understand what planes contribute to which area. There are also some confusion with bombers, as some of them seems not to contribute to bombers requirements.

There is a lot of confusion with the TBs. It is one of those game aspects that is a very interesting concept but could do with some improvements.

_____________________________

(in reply to Stamb)

Post #: 10

RE: TB Values Naval wrong math issues - 2/1/2022 7:40:31 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xhoel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Maybe recon are naval patrol planes?

Nope, their profiles are recon.

I did a test. Recon and patrol planes both contribute to patrol(base)

(in reply to xhoel)

Post #: 11

RE: TB Values Naval wrong math issues - 2/1/2022 8:10:12 PM

xhoel

Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

I did a test. Recon and patrol planes both contribute to patrol(base)

Thanks for testing it Stamb! Appreciate it.

But still I am a bit confused. There were no recon planes lost so the hit cant have come from there. Neither is it from Tac Bomb losses (only 1 plane lost). The loss of the fighters only drops the strength contributing to naval power by a mere 0.06 points. And there was a whole new bomber group arriving.

How the hell is the value dropping from 2.56 to 2.08? Thats a 0.48 drop.

_____________________________

(in reply to Stamb)

Post #: 12

RE: TB Values Naval wrong math issues - 2/1/2022 8:17:21 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

Can you compare pilots experience of that recon planes on t10 and t11?

(in reply to xhoel)

Post #: 13

RE: TB Values Naval wrong math issues - 2/1/2022 8:25:34 PM

xhoel

Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Can you compare pilots experience of that recon planes on t10 and t11?

Yes, its the same. The total exp loss for all units is 2 points. Dont think that could have caused such a sharp drop.

_____________________________

(in reply to Stamb)

Post #: 14

RE: TB Values Naval wrong math issues - 2/2/2022 4:06:52 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

As we can already see there is a confusion which planes contributes to which requirements. It would be nice to have text that says:

Patrol (base) and then list of planes (recon, naval patrol).
Same goes for bombers. Do level bombers and tactical bombers both contribute to bomber requirements? We don't know, unless somebody makes a test.
And so on.

And of course values with a CV for an air group themselves.

(in reply to xhoel)

Post #: 15