RE: Artillery Testing

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Artillery Testing

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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Artillery Testing

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 3:45:21 AM

BigJ62

Posts: 1800
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline

My test.
Allied units set to zero disruption, zero fat, zero disablements with no replacements, no repairs, no construction, no ac in hex, no ships in hex, no industry in hex.
After cbt phase is the phase where units are resupplied then recover and replace ammo and consume supplies based on total devices and shot count.keep in mind we don't use fractions and supply required is 30 days of supply.
B = before recovery.
A = after recovery.

Fist 8 days of no cbt.

Turn 4
HK supply 21398, required 772
Unit 6332 - supB 56, supA 54, req 46, consummed 2, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 51, moraleA 51, total devicesB 1513, total devicesA 1513, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6333 - supB 94, supA 91, req 84, consummed 3, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 6622, total devicesA 6622, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6334 - supB 94, supA 91, req 84, consummed 3, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 60, moraleA 60, total devicesB 6622, total devicesA 6622, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6335 - supB 104, supA 100, req 94, consummed 4, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 30, moraleA 30, total devicesB 8758, total devicesA 8757, repaired 1, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6336 - supB 164, supA 158, req 154, consummed 6, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 9731, total devicesA 9731, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6337 - supB 320, supA 309, req 310, consummed 11, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 31, moraleA 31, total devicesB 12390, total devicesA 12389, repaired 1, shotsB 0, shotsA 0

Turn 5
HK supply 21369, required 773
Unit 6332 - supB 56, supA 54, req 46, consummed 2, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 51, moraleA 51, total devicesB 1513, total devicesA 1513, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6333 - supB 94, supA 91, req 84, consummed 3, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 6622, total devicesA 6622, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6334 - supB 94, supA 91, req 84, consummed 3, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 60, moraleA 60, total devicesB 6622, total devicesA 6622, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6335 - supB 104, supA 100, req 95, consummed 4, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 30, moraleA 30, total devicesB 8757, total devicesA 8757, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6336 - supB 164, supA 158, req 154, consummed 6, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 9731, total devicesA 9731, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6337 - supB 320, supA 309, req 310, consummed 11, fatB 2, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 31, moraleA 31, total devicesB 12391, total devicesA 12391, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0

Turn 6
HK supply 21339, required 772
Unit 6332 - supB 56, supA 54, req 46, consummed 2, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 51, moraleA 51, total devicesB 1513, total devicesA 1513, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6333 - supB 94, supA 91, req 84, consummed 3, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 6622, total devicesA 6622, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6334 - supB 94, supA 91, req 83, consummed 3, fatB 2, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 60, moraleA 60, total devicesB 6623, total devicesA 6623, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6335 - supB 105, supA 101, req 95, consummed 4, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 30, moraleA 30, total devicesB 8757, total devicesA 8757, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6336 - supB 164, supA 158, req 154, consummed 6, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 9731, total devicesA 9731, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6337 - supB 320, supA 309, req 310, consummed 11, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 31, moraleA 31, total devicesB 12391, total devicesA 12391, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0

Turn 7
HK supply 21311, required 772
Unit 6332 - supB 56, supA 54, req 46, consummed 2, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 51, moraleA 51, total devicesB 1513, total devicesA 1513, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6333 - supB 94, supA 91, req 84, consummed 3, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 6622, total devicesA 6622, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6334 - supB 93, supA 90, req 83, consummed 3, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 60, moraleA 60, total devicesB 6623, total devicesA 6622, repaired 1, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6335 - supB 105, supA 101, req 95, consummed 4, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 30, moraleA 30, total devicesB 8757, total devicesA 8757, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6336 - supB 164, supA 158, req 154, consummed 6, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 9731, total devicesA 9731, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6337 - supB 320, supA 309, req 310, consummed 11, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 31, moraleA 31, total devicesB 12391, total devicesA 12391, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0

Turn 8
HK supply 21282, required 772
Unit 6332 - supB 56, supA 54, req 46, consummed 2, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 51, moraleA 51, total devicesB 1513, total devicesA 1513, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6333 - supB 94, supA 91, req 84, consummed 3, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 6622, total devicesA 6622, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6334 - supB 93, supA 90, req 84, consummed 3, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 60, moraleA 60, total devicesB 6622, total devicesA 6622, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6335 - supB 105, supA 101, req 95, consummed 4, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 30, moraleA 30, total devicesB 8757, total devicesA 8757, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6336 - supB 164, supA 158, req 154, consummed 6, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 9731, total devicesA 9731, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6337 - supB 320, supA 309, req 309, consummed 11, fatB 2, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 31, moraleA 31, total devicesB 12392, total devicesA 12391, repaired 1, shotsB 0, shotsA 0

Turn 9
HK supply 21253, required 772
Unit 6332 - supB 56, supA 54, req 46, consummed 2, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 51, moraleA 51, total devicesB 1513, total devicesA 1513, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6333 - supB 94, supA 91, req 84, consummed 3, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 6622, total devicesA 6622, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6334 - supB 94, supA 91, req 84, consummed 3, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 60, moraleA 60, total devicesB 6622, total devicesA 6622, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6335 - supB 105, supA 101, req 95, consummed 4, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 30, moraleA 30, total devicesB 8757, total devicesA 8757, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6336 - supB 164, supA 158, req 154, consummed 6, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 9731, total devicesA 9731, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6337 - supB 319, supA 308, req 309, consummed 11, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 31, moraleA 31, total devicesB 12391, total devicesA 12391, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0

Turn 10
HK supply 21224, required 769
Unit 6332 - supB 56, supA 54, req 46, consummed 2, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 51, moraleA 51, total devicesB 1513, total devicesA 1513, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6333 - supB 94, supA 91, req 84, consummed 3, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 6622, total devicesA 6622, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6334 - supB 94, supA 91, req 83, consummed 3, fatB 2, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 60, moraleA 60, total devicesB 6623, total devicesA 6623, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6335 - supB 105, supA 101, req 93, consummed 4, fatB 2, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 30, moraleA 30, total devicesB 8759, total devicesA 8757, repaired 2, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6336 - supB 164, supA 158, req 154, consummed 6, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 9731, total devicesA 9731, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6337 - supB 319, supA 308, req 309, consummed 11, fatB 2, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 31, moraleA 31, total devicesB 12393, total devicesA 12393, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0

Turn 11
HK supply 21198, required 771
Unit 6332 - supB 56, supA 54, req 46, consummed 2, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 51, moraleA 51, total devicesB 1513, total devicesA 1513, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6333 - supB 94, supA 91, req 84, consummed 3, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 6622, total devicesA 6622, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6334 - supB 93, supA 90, req 83, consummed 3, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 60, moraleA 60, total devicesB 6623, total devicesA 6623, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6335 - supB 103, supA 99, req 95, consummed 4, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 30, moraleA 30, total devicesB 8757, total devicesA 8757, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6336 - supB 164, supA 158, req 154, consummed 6, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 9731, total devicesA 9731, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6337 - supB 319, supA 308, req 309, consummed 11, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 31, moraleA 31, total devicesB 12393, total devicesA 12391, repaired 2, shotsB 0, shotsA 0

Then 8 days of arty from dedicated arty.

Turn 4
HK supply 21398, required 1259
Unit 6332 - supB 56, supA 54, req 46, consummed 2, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 51, moraleA 51, total devicesB 1513, total devicesA 1513, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6333 - supB 92, supA 87, req 124, consummed 5, fatB 4, fatA 0, disB 2, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 6623, total devicesA 6622, repaired 1, shotsB 5, shotsA 1
Unit 6334 - supB 87, supA 83, req 116, consummed 4, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 6, disA 0, moraleB 60, moraleA 60, total devicesB 6624, total devicesA 6623, repaired 1, shotsB 4, shotsA 1
Unit 6335 - supB 104, supA 100, req 94, consummed 4, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 30, moraleA 30, total devicesB 8758, total devicesA 8758, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6336 - supB 164, supA 154, req 292, consummed 10, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 9731, total devicesA 9731, repaired 0, shotsB 9, shotsA 2
Unit 6337 - supB 319, supA 299, req 587, consummed 20, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 31, moraleA 31, total devicesB 12391, total devicesA 12391, repaired 0, shotsB 9, shotsA 2
Turn 5
HK supply 20855, required 1256
Unit 6332 - supB 54, supA 52, req 49, consummed 2, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 51, moraleA 51, total devicesB 1514, total devicesA 1513, repaired 1, shotsB 1, shotsA 1
Unit 6333 - supB 134, supA 129, req 126, consummed 5, fatB 6, fatA 0, disB 4, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 6622, total devicesA 6622, repaired 0, shotsB 5, shotsA 0
Unit 6334 - supB 124, supA 120, req 116, consummed 4, fatB 6, fatA 0, disB 2, disA 0, moraleB 60, moraleA 60, total devicesB 6624, total devicesA 6623, repaired 1, shotsB 4, shotsA 1
Unit 6335 - supB 104, supA 100, req 103, consummed 4, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 30, moraleA 30, total devicesB 8758, total devicesA 8758, repaired 0, shotsB 1, shotsA 1
Unit 6336 - supB 301, supA 290, req 308, consummed 11, fatB 5, fatA 0, disB 1, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 9731, total devicesA 9731, repaired 0, shotsB 10, shotsA 1
Unit 6337 - supB 596, supA 577, req 554, consummed 19, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 1, disA 0, moraleB 31, moraleA 31, total devicesB 12393, total devicesA 12392, repaired 1, shotsB 8, shotsA 1

Turn 6
HK supply 20807, required 1292
Unit 6332 - supB 59, supA 57, req 59, consummed 2, fatB 5, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 51, moraleA 51, total devicesB 1513, total devicesA 1513, repaired 0, shotsB 3, shotsA 0
Unit 6333 - supB 134, supA 129, req 141, consummed 5, fatB 4, fatA 0, disB 2, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 6623, total devicesA 6623, repaired 0, shotsB 7, shotsA 1
Unit 6334 - supB 125, supA 120, req 141, consummed 5, fatB 5, fatA 0, disB 2, disA 0, moraleB 60, moraleA 60, total devicesB 6623, total devicesA 6623, repaired 0, shotsB 7, shotsA 1
Unit 6335 - supB 113, supA 109, req 103, consummed 4, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 30, moraleA 30, total devicesB 8758, total devicesA 8758, repaired 0, shotsB 1, shotsA 0
Unit 6336 - supB 318, supA 308, req 292, consummed 10, fatB 4, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 9731, total devicesA 9731, repaired 0, shotsB 9, shotsA 1
Unit 6337 - supB 563, supA 544, req 556, consummed 19, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 31, moraleA 31, total devicesB 12393, total devicesA 12393, repaired 0, shotsB 8, shotsA 1

Turn 7
HK supply 20721, required 1286
Unit 6332 - supB 66, supA 64, req 55, consummed 2, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 3, disA 0, moraleB 51, moraleA 51, total devicesB 1513, total devicesA 1513, repaired 0, shotsB 2, shotsA 1
Unit 6333 - supB 150, supA 145, req 124, consummed 5, fatB 7, fatA 0, disB 2, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 6623, total devicesA 6623, repaired 0, shotsB 5, shotsA 1
Unit 6334 - supB 148, supA 143, req 139, consummed 5, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 1, disA 0, moraleB 60, moraleA 60, total devicesB 6625, total devicesA 6624, repaired 1, shotsB 7, shotsA 1
Unit 6335 - supB 113, supA 109, req 93, consummed 4, fatB 2, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 30, moraleA 30, total devicesB 8759, total devicesA 8759, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6336 - supB 302, supA 292, req 290, consummed 10, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 1, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 9732, total devicesA 9732, repaired 0, shotsB 9, shotsA 1
Unit 6337 - supB 564, supA 544, req 585, consummed 20, fatB 4, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 31, moraleA 31, total devicesB 12393, total devicesA 12391, repaired 2, shotsB 9, shotsA 1

Turn 8
HK supply 20672, required 1264
Unit 6332 - supB 63, supA 61, req 49, consummed 2, fatB 6, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 51, moraleA 51, total devicesB 1514, total devicesA 1513, repaired 1, shotsB 1, shotsA 1
Unit 6333 - supB 133, supA 129, req 116, consummed 4, fatB 5, fatA 0, disB 2, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 6623, total devicesA 6623, repaired 0, shotsB 4, shotsA 1
Unit 6334 - supB 148, supA 143, req 131, consummed 5, fatB 6, fatA 0, disB 5, disA 0, moraleB 60, moraleA 60, total devicesB 6624, total devicesA 6624, repaired 0, shotsB 6, shotsA 1
Unit 6335 - supB 103, supA 99, req 93, consummed 4, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 30, moraleA 30, total devicesB 8759, total devicesA 8758, repaired 1, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6336 - supB 300, supA 290, req 290, consummed 10, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 9732, total devicesA 9731, repaired 1, shotsB 9, shotsA 1
Unit 6337 - supB 595, supA 575, req 585, consummed 20, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 31, moraleA 31, total devicesB 12392, total devicesA 12391, repaired 1, shotsB 9, shotsA 1

Turn 9
HK supply 20642, required 1231
Unit 6332 - supB 57, supA 55, req 49, consummed 2, fatB 4, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 51, moraleA 51, total devicesB 1514, total devicesA 1514, repaired 0, shotsB 1, shotsA 1
Unit 6333 - supB 125, supA 120, req 131, consummed 5, fatB 5, fatA 0, disB 1, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 6624, total devicesA 6623, repaired 1, shotsB 6, shotsA 1
Unit 6334 - supB 133, supA 129, req 113, consummed 4, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 4, disA 0, moraleB 60, moraleA 60, total devicesB 6626, total devicesA 6625, repaired 1, shotsB 4, shotsA 1
Unit 6335 - supB 103, supA 99, req 94, consummed 4, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 30, moraleA 30, total devicesB 8758, total devicesA 8758, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6336 - supB 297, supA 287, req 290, consummed 10, fatB 5, fatA 0, disB 1, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 9732, total devicesA 9731, repaired 1, shotsB 9, shotsA 1
Unit 6337 - supB 595, supA 576, req 554, consummed 19, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 1, disA 0, moraleB 31, moraleA 31, total devicesB 12392, total devicesA 12390, repaired 2, shotsB 8, shotsA 0

Turn 10
HK supply 20616, required 1264
Unit 6332 - supB 58, supA 56, req 49, consummed 2, fatB 5, fatA 0, disB 1, disA 0, moraleB 51, moraleA 51, total devicesB 1514, total devicesA 1513, repaired 1, shotsB 1, shotsA 1
Unit 6333 - supB 136, supA 131, req 131, consummed 5, fatB 7, fatA 0, disB 5, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 6625, total devicesA 6625, repaired 0, shotsB 6, shotsA 1
Unit 6334 - supB 120, supA 116, req 113, consummed 4, fatB 4, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 60, moraleA 60, total devicesB 6626, total devicesA 6626, repaired 0, shotsB 4, shotsA 0
Unit 6335 - supB 104, supA 100, req 94, consummed 4, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 30, moraleA 30, total devicesB 8758, total devicesA 8758, repaired 0, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6336 - supB 299, supA 289, req 292, consummed 10, fatB 4, fatA 0, disB 1, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 9731, total devicesA 9731, repaired 0, shotsB 9, shotsA 1
Unit 6337 - supB 562, supA 542, req 585, consummed 20, fatB 4, fatA 0, disB 2, disA 0, moraleB 31, moraleA 31, total devicesB 12392, total devicesA 12392, repaired 0, shotsB 9, shotsA 0

Turn 11
HK supply 20526, required 1254
Unit 6332 - supB 59, supA 57, req 50, consummed 2, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 51, moraleA 51, total devicesB 1513, total devicesA 1513, repaired 0, shotsB 1, shotsA 0
Unit 6333 - supB 141, supA 136, req 131, consummed 5, fatB 6, fatA 0, disB 2, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 6625, total devicesA 6623, repaired 2, shotsB 6, shotsA 1
Unit 6334 - supB 118, supA 114, req 104, consummed 4, fatB 6, fatA 0, disB 4, disA 0, moraleB 60, moraleA 60, total devicesB 6627, total devicesA 6623, repaired 4, shotsB 3, shotsA 1
Unit 6335 - supB 104, supA 100, req 94, consummed 4, fatB 3, fatA 0, disB 0, disA 0, moraleB 30, moraleA 30, total devicesB 8758, total devicesA 8757, repaired 1, shotsB 0, shotsA 0
Unit 6336 - supB 302, supA 292, req 292, consummed 10, fatB 4, fatA 0, disB 1, disA 0, moraleB 61, moraleA 61, total devicesB 9731, total devicesA 9731, repaired 0, shotsB 9, shotsA 1
Unit 6337 - supB 591, supA 571, req 583, consummed 20, fatB 7, fatA 0, disB 4, disA 0, moraleB 31, moraleA 31, total devicesB 12393, total devicesA 12392, repaired 1, shotsB 9, shotsA 1

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi�AeAi �AeAi�Long live AeAi.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 61

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 3:58:26 AM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

How many tubes, what is the fort level, these are just numbers with nothing to quantify them.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to BigJ62)

Post #: 62

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 4:07:28 AM

BigJ62

Posts: 1800
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline

the same units at the same base as yours fort 3 besides wasn't your arguement about defenders using less supploy in cbt? My results clearly show that this is not the case. Btw the reason you see more arty guns than actually fire is because two of units don't qualify for arty but still get counted.

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi�AeAi �AeAi�Long live AeAi.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 63

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 4:24:19 AM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

the same units at the same base as yours fort 3 besides wasn't your arguement about defenders using less supploy in cbt? My results clearly show that this is not the case. Btw the reason you see more arty guns than actually fire is because two of units don't qualify for arty but still get counted.

Your results show that you got different results. I'm not surprised by this. Two different players, two different machines, there are variables. A much larger sample size will be needed to prove anything, if anything can be proven. And I wasn't trying to prove the supply situation, I actually went in looking to see what levels of fatigue and disruption were experienced, which was close to nil for both attacker and defender.

Treespider mentioned that I needed to copy the supply stats so I did. And it gave me those results. I had no bias towards the supply usage at all. If it is a bug as treespider seems to think it will go to the devs and they will investigate it.

It does seem that you are quite interested in proving me wrong however. And this is a fight I am simply not going to participate in. We got different results, the Developers will look at them and run their own internal tests and go from there. And unless there are more players out there willing to dedicate the time to testing this, we will simply have to wait and see what the developers discover.

I don't really care if I am right or I am wrong, I do care that it is working as it is supposed to. I am also still of the opinion that artillery has too little effect on combat in this game post Patch 3. Before the fix went in, it was far too powerful, now it seems far too weak. Its not my decision really, I can only offer my opinion on the matter and share the results I got.

I still stand by my statements that the effect of artillery on defenders is negligible and that the following 3 things are needed to improve it:

1. Chance to cause disruption
2. Chance to cause fatigue
3. Chance to lower morale

I'm sure other people have other opinions, after all everybody has one. In the meantime, game on and have fun.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to BigJ62)

Post #: 64

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 4:35:55 AM

BigJ62

Posts: 1800
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline

I am the developer on the land team and my results come straight from the code. As to the results, it would appear that a saturation level has not been reached which means you would need more arty to acheive the same results prior to patch 3 which is extremely fine by me.

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi�AeAi �AeAi�Long live AeAi.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 65

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 4:40:58 AM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

Then I have wasted my time. That was all I needed to know.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to BigJ62)

Post #: 66

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 5:08:29 AM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

The actual results from WW2 Pacific would seem to indicate that artillery bombardments of fixed positions - which is exactly what is being tested in this thread - resulted in marginal degradation of enemy forces. Did the Japanese sit back and do nothing but lob shells at Hong Kong, Singapore, and Bataan? No, they sent in troops on the ground and it was THAT which demoralized the enemy and finally cracked the positions. If the Japanese had tried to reduce Hong Kong with artillery alone, the defenders would still be holding on today.

So does that mean artillery in AE has no effect? Quite the reverse, it wreaks havoc. Just look at the casualty figures during deliberate and shock attacks. You think all of that is coming from rifles? And what about those huge losses suffered by retreating forces? As any veteran will tell you, it's not rifles and machine guns that are annihilating the undisciplined masses as they flee across open ground.

That said, it's possible that some tweaking might be in order - at a minimum there's no question that artillery bombardments of fixed positions do have morale and "disruption" effects, even if casulties are small. But the real problem here is perception, as many people seem to have an exaggerated sense of what artillery bombardments are capable of IN THE ABSENCE OF INFANTRY ASSAULTS. Especially in rough, hilly, or urban terrain.

(in reply to BigJ62)

Post #: 67

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 5:20:49 AM

Grfin Zeppelin

Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

As any veteran will tell you, it's not rifles and machine guns that are annihilating the undisciplined masses as they flee across open ground.

If you find one old enough he would tell you its the cavalry

_____________________________

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 68

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 5:33:12 AM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

I have struggled to wade through all of these numbers, and here is what I see.

In this particular test, I can besiege HK for ten turns or I can besiege and bombard HK for ten turns.

If I choose to bombard, I will inflict no more casualties than besieging, I will inflict no more fatigue from bombarding, I will inflict no more morale loss from bombarding, and I will cause the destruction of 1143 supply points (average of 114.3 per turn) by bombarding. Previous tests indicated that suffering from a bombardment increases experience but simply being besieged does not so I will increase the defenders experience by some non-zero value by bombarding.

It has not been determined from these test if artillery has any significant effect in an infantry assault or if it does NOT have any significant assault. INCONCLUSIVE on this factor

My conclusion is I will continue to move artillery into a hex to help (probably) with an attack or defense but I should never bombard a city with entrenchments of 3 or higher.

What did I miss?

EDIT: DISCLAIMER I intend no commentery in this post. I actually have no firm opinion as to whether I consider this result "right" or "wrong". In fact I can make a case either way. My only intent is to see if I have properly determined a rule to guide my play.

< Message edited by pompack -- 3/10/2010 5:40:40 AM >

(in reply to BigJ62)

Post #: 69

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 5:51:32 AM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

My conclusion is I will continue to move artillery into a hex to help (probably) with an attack or defense but I should never bombard a city with entrenchments of 3 or higher.

What did I miss?

Not much. The devs have told us that one of the major changes to eliminate "artillery death stars" was to ensure that both terrain and fortifications dampen the effects of artillery, which is borne out by these tests. I would expect that a similar test involving units with fort level of zero on on "clear" terrain would result in more casualties, but just how many is unknown absent testing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Then I have wasted my time. That was all I needed to know.

Absolutely not. If anything you demonstrated pretty conclusively that bombardments are now working-as-designed in Patch 3. In fact I agree with three of your four post-test recommendations (although I'd quibble over the "without regard" comment on number 2):

2. Morale should have a chance of damage from heavy bombardment, without regard to fortifications.
3. Units should have a chance to be disrupted by bombardment.
4. Units should have a chance to suffer fatigue from bombardment.

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 70

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 5:55:49 AM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack
My conclusion is I will continue to move artillery into a hex to help (probably) with an attack or defense but I should never bombard a city with entrenchments of 3 or higher.

No you should bombard, especially in a case where the defender has no resupply ability like Singapore or Bataan. If you fail to bombard, the units in the hex use less supply than if they are bombarded daily. So a defender will last a lot longer in long sieges if you simply sit on your hands and wait.

The problem is players have gotten used to the over-destructive aspect of pure bombardments that happened in the release version of AE, so they now equate success only if they cause massive damage or disruption with their bombardments.

But success can also be tied to time. Reduce Bataan before May or Singapore before 15 Feb. and you have succeeded with your bombardments reduction of the enemy process. Fail to bombard and those two locations can hold out for months longer.

This is how it worked in WitP, and is how it should have worked from the start in AE. Players just need to get used to the change back to a more historic model where bombardments were really just harassing fire meant to keep the enemy on edge and increase their supply usage and destruction of enemy equipment was achieved via the assaults.

And don�t forget, artillery fire is also a big part of the deliberate attack and shock attack engine as well, and it causes a lot more damage in those two models as it should. It�s a different application of the same force, yet a riskier application as well.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 71

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 7:09:56 AM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

My conclusion is I will continue to move artillery into a hex to help (probably) with an attack or defense but I should never bombard a city with entrenchments of 3 or higher.

What did I miss?

Not much. The devs have told us that one of the major changes to eliminate "artillery death stars" was to ensure that both terrain and fortifications dampen the effects of artillery, which is borne out by these tests. I would expect that a similar test involving units with fort level of zero on on "clear" terrain would result in more casualties, but just how many is unknown absent testing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Then I have wasted my time. That was all I needed to know.

Absolutely not. If anything you demonstrated pretty conclusively that bombardments are now working-as-designed in Patch 3. In fact I agree with three of your four post-test recommendations (although I'd quibble over the "without regard" comment on number 2):

2. Morale should have a chance of damage from heavy bombardment, without regard to fortifications.
3. Units should have a chance to be disrupted by bombardment.
4. Units should have a chance to suffer fatigue from bombardment.

No it was a waste of my time. I thought I was doing something good and all I got in return is a bunch of grief, verging on total disrespect. Consider it lesson learned. There are those that do appreciate the effort, don't get me wrong; but the amount of grief you get just makes it not worth doing. The negative always seems to stick harder than the positive, especially when you've put so much effort into something.

To those that do appreciate what I did, thank you. I do appreciate the support, but I should probably take a break; I've let this affect me far too much.

Game on.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 72

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 8:18:45 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

2. Morale should have a chance of damage from heavy bombardment, without regard to fortifications.
3. Units should have a chance to be disrupted by bombardment.
4. Units should have a chance to suffer fatigue from bombardment.

Yep. Bombardments are important to stress everyone.

I continue to be surprised by decisions in AE. Maybe the code is too complicated but the game seems to be jumping from one side to another.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 73

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 8:37:05 AM

RoryAndersonCDT

Posts: 1830
Joined: 6/16/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

No it was a waste of my time. I thought I was doing something good and all I got in return is a bunch of grief, verging on total disrespect. Consider it lesson learned. There are those that do appreciate the effort, don't get me wrong; but the amount of grief you get just makes it not worth doing. The negative always seems to stick harder than the positive, especially when you've put so much effort into something.

Please stop being so dramatic, this is the Internet not a high school classroom.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 74

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 10:31:51 AM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

The actual results from WW2 Pacific would seem to indicate that�artillery bombardments of fixed positions - which is exactly what is being tested in this thread - resulted in marginal degradation of enemy forces. Did the Japanese sit back and do nothing but lob shells at Hong Kong, Singapore, and Bataan? No, they sent in troops on the ground and it was THAT which demoralized the enemy and finally cracked the positions. If the Japanese had tried to reduce�Hong Kong with artillery alone, the defenders would still be holding on today.

So does that mean artillery in AE has no effect? Quite the reverse, it�wreaks havoc. Just look at the casualty figures during deliberate and shock attacks. You think all of that is coming from rifles? And what about those huge losses suffered by retreating forces? As any veteran will tell you, it's not rifles and machine guns that are annihilating the undisciplined masses as they flee across open ground.

That said, it's possible that some tweaking might be in order - at a minimum there's no question that artillery bombardments of fixed positions do have morale and "disruption" effects, even if casulties are small. But the real problem here is perception, as�many people seem to have an exaggerated sense of what artillery bombardments are capable of�IN THE ABSENCE OF INFANTRY ASSAULTS. Especially in rough, hilly, or urban terrain.

Probles is, even deliberate attacks do not model the sort of gradual grind of which most positional battles of WW II, in Pacific and elsewhere, consisted. Does "complete rest-massive charge-complete rest-massive charge" routine that is the only viable way to attack enemy bases now resembles realities of New Guinea or Okinawa, like, at all? Bombardment duels were the main way the game reflected prolonged ground battles of attrition, and now it is gone.

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 75

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 10:40:59 AM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

No you should bombard, especially in a case where the defender has no resupply ability like Singapore or Bataan. If you fail to bombard, the units in the hex use less supply than if they are bombarded daily. So a defender will last a lot longer in long sieges if you simply sit on your hands and wait.

Except, the test demonstrates, that the effect on the defender's supply is negligible. Even if BigJ62's results are correct ones. 600-supply difference over 8 days just doesn't really matter, even assuming that bombardment uses up 0 supply. If you the siege lasted long enough that 75-supply/day difference became meaningful, the defender achieved his goals anyway, whether we talk about early-war Japanese expansion, or late-war Allied advance. In my current PBEM, Clark Field was bombarded with little pauses for about a month, and effects were just barely noticeable.

I'll try to mass 10-15 ART units in my test game against AI and look at the results, but so far the most use I got post-patch ART is firing "intelligence shells" (c) to measure enemy's AV.

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/10/2010 10:45:52 AM >

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 76

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 10:49:20 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

No it was a waste of my time. I thought I was doing something good and all I got in return is a bunch of grief, verging on total disrespect.

Consider it lesson learned. There are those that do appreciate the effort, don't get me wrong; but the amount of grief you get just makes it not worth doing. The negative always seems to stick harder than the positive, especially when you've put so much effort into something.

To those that do appreciate what I did, thank you. I do appreciate the support, but I should probably take a break; I've let this affect me far too much.

Game on.

Who showed any disrespect?

BigJ took the time and trouble to run the same test through his debugger and published the results...he could have completely dismissed you.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 77

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 11:05:11 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

the same units at the same base as yours fort 3 besides wasn't your arguement about defenders using less supploy in cbt? My results clearly show that this is not the case. Btw the reason you see more arty guns than actually fire is because two of units don't qualify for arty but still get counted.

Now the question is why?

In Sharks tests:

The Non-Combat Group had 360 fewer supply points at the end of the test.
The combat group had 270ish less...

And this is with industry

In the BigJ run:
The non-combat group had 232 points less than when it started (Turn 4 compared to Turn 11)
22201 at the end of Turn 4 - 21969 at the end of Turn 11 = 232 diff

Whereas the combat group had 22175 on Turn 4 minus 21796 = a 379 point difference

Without industry....

Practically the opposite result.

Maybe I'm just stupid but how can the non-combat group in Sharks test (with a functioning industry) end up with consuming 130 more supply points than BigJ's non-combat group that did not have industry?

In other words Sharks units ended with 360 fewer points than when they started and BigJ's ended up with 230ish fewer points than when they started...why the discrepancy?

I would think with a functioning industry, and the same consumption, the industry would produce supply which would have caused Sharks non combat group to have even more supply on hand at the end of the test...or at the least a smaller delta between starting and ending supply.

< Message edited by treespider -- 3/10/2010 11:08:24 AM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to BigJ62)

Post #: 78

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 1:24:04 PM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

Shark

I found your tests enlightening, helpful, and even inspiring

BigJ62 ran more test using a neutral baseline and tools not readily available to us and got the same result, although he left it up to the reader to do the addition (and I really, really wish that the forum was Excel friendly so I wouldn't have to transcribe the numbers manually

)

AIUI, he said that it is WAD and WAI. However if you had not run your test I certainly would not have realized exactly what that meant.

After thinking about it overnight and reading some of Kull's excellent posts (both here and in the other thread), I am beginning to lean toward actually liking this IF artillery still has some affect in assaults. The "inspiration" that I got from your test is an urge to run some tests of my own, using your methodology, to determine if this affect still exists.

As Kull pointed out, there were no WWI type multi-day extended bombardments in the Pacific. In fact, even the Russians usually attacked the same day they bombarded for effect. In the Pacific there seemed to be probing attacks with less than full force accompanied by rapid bombardment just before and just after the probe with call fire during the probe. I intend to run a series of tests with attacks WITHOUT INDEPENDENT ARTILLERY IN THE HEX to establish a baseline; I found several suspect hints in your tests that suggest to me that independent artillery may take part even if you told it not to. I then will run the same series of attacks with the independent units in the hex and participating. If I get results that can imply that artillery causes significant casulties in the attack I will be satisfied.

So hang in there Shark

P.S. And my tests are primarily for my benifit so I am not going to spend a lot of time typing in tons of numbers. I will post if anyone is interested
P.P.S. Correction: I will post if anyone is interested and I can get automatic updates, automatic backups, and automatic defrags to stop automating this morning long enough to set up the test!!!

< Message edited by pompack -- 3/10/2010 2:11:33 PM >

(in reply to RoryAndersonCDT)

Post #: 79

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 2:38:37 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

Nice work, Shark7 and Treespider. Thanks for the efforts.

My take home message is that our observations have been validated-artillery got nerfed but good. I'll continue to uber stack my artillery in order to wring out any pathetic benefits from the bombardment process where I can whilest hoping for the bug fix in the near future.

It's too bad that this will impact so many games out there now. Artillery being nerfed for the expansive phase of the IJ game period (and fixed when the allies retaliate) will really change gameplay and outcome for a whole lot of people. It's a shame, really.

_____________________________

(in reply to chesmart)

Post #: 80

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 2:40:12 PM

Jaroen

Posts: 169
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Amsterdam
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

I am the developer on the land team and my results come straight from the code. As to the results, it would appear that a saturation level has not been reached which means you would need more arty to acheive the same results prior to patch 3 which is extremely fine by me.

I am grateful to both Shark7 and BigJ62. They made an effort and showed us what expectations we should have from bombardments under these specific conditions. I also do understand Shark7's lack of enthousiasm after all his effort. I may be mistaken but I believe he didn't recognize BigJ62 as one of the developers.

But at least I really did learn something new. Bombardments should overcome something like that saturation level to have any effect. Whether this is a good measure in relationship to expectations of bombarments being demoralizing I'm unsure. I can think of arguments pro and contra. But I don't have any problems with the examples shown in the tests and am happy with the artillery results in my game against the AI.

Now to figure out how I can work with that saturation level.

My 2cts, Jaroen.

(in reply to BigJ62)

Post #: 81

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 3:00:37 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

Shark

I found your tests enlightening, helpful, and even inspiring

BigJ62 ran more test using a neutral baseline and tools not readily available to us and got the same result,

Actually I thought the results were opposite?

In Sharks test the non-combat group had a bigger difference between starting and ending supply than the combat group...whereas in BigJ's test the non-combat group had a smaller delta between starting and ending supply than the combat group. Which implies that in Sharks test the non-combat group consumed more supply than the combat group whereas in BigJ the combat group had the bigger delta and thus consumed more supply.

Using round numbers in Sharks test the noncombat group started with 18900 and ended with 18500 a 400 point drop with industry. In BigJ's test the non-combat group without industry started with 22200 and ended up with 22000 - only a 200 point drop.

I would have expected the opposite....given equal rates of consumption the group with industry should have experienced a smaller drop than the group without industry, because presumably the industry would be manufacturing supply.

quote:

although he left it up to the reader to do the addition (and I really, really wish that the forum was Excel friendly so I wouldn't have to transcribe the numbers manually )

AIUI, he said that it is WAD and WAI. However if you had not run your test I certainly would not have realized exactly what that meant.

After thinking about it overnight and reading some of Kull's excellent posts (both here and in the other thread), I am beginning to lean toward actually liking this IF artillery still has some affect in assaults. The "inspiration" that I got from your test is an urge to run some tests of my own, using your methodology, to determine if this affect still exists.

As Kull pointed out, there were no WWI type multi-day extended bombardments in the Pacific. In fact, even the Russians usually attacked the same day they bombarded for effect. In the Pacific there seemed to be probing attacks with less than full force accompanied by rapid bombardment just before and just after the probe with call fire during the probe. I intend to run a series of tests with attacks WITHOUT INDEPENDENT ARTILLERY IN THE HEX to establish a baseline; I found several suspect hints in your tests that suggest to me that independent artillery may take part even if you told it not to. I then will run the same series of attacks with the independent units in the hex and participating. If I get results that can imply that artillery causes significant casulties in the attack I will be satisfied.

So hang in there Shark

P.S. And my tests are primarily for my benifit so I am not going to spend a lot of time typing in tons of numbers. I will post if anyone is interested
P.P.S. Correction: I will post if anyone is interested and I can get automatic updates, automatic backups, and automatic defrags to stop automating this morning long enough to set up the test!!!

If you can build a sandbox I will be glad to test as well...which I was planning on doing this weekend.

Although it appears the bombardment is causing the defender to consume more supply from BigJ's test ...something else was at work in Shark's test...possibly related to industry...that caused a result opposite from what was expected IMO.

< Message edited by treespider -- 3/10/2010 3:07:58 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 82

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 3:34:35 PM

PresterJohn001

Posts: 382
Joined: 8/11/2009
Status: offline

I graphed the supply remaining in Hong Kong from BigJ's data. Clearly - in that run - the bombardment is causing more supply to be used. Although there is an ?anomalous jump in supply usage from day 1 to day 2 of the bombardment. (day 4 to 5 in the data)

Other effects are neglible, very minor disruption and fatigue, no apparent losses to devices.

Supply is a logistical constraint, especially where units are not cut off and can draw supply from reserves.

Blue Line - No Bombardment
Red Line - Bombardment

Attachment (1)

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 83

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 3:51:20 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

I graphed the supply remaining in Hong Kong from BigJ's data. Clearly - in that run - the bombardment is causing more supply to be used. Although there is an ?anomalous jump in supply usage from day 1 to day 2 of the bombardment. (day 4 to 5 in the data)

Other effects are neglible, very minor disruption and fatigue, no apparent losses to devices.

Supply is a logistical constraint, especially where units are not cut off and can draw supply from reserves.

Blue Line - No Bombardment
Red Line - Bombardment

Do not forget to add in the SupA value for the units...

I do not think anyone is questioning BigJ's results...

Howver there is a discrete difference between BigJ's and Sharks...give me an hour to slap together the figures and graphs and I will try and illustrate what I am talking about...I believe it is related to the industry.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to PresterJohn001)

Post #: 84

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 4:25:42 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

Ok this is a graph of Sharks results.

This is a TOTAL of all supply in the hex from Turn to Turn - note how the Non-Combat with Industry (the blue line) ends up below the Combat with Industry (the red line)

Which means the combat group finished the cycle with more supplies than the non-combat group.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by treespider -- 3/10/2010 4:59:26 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 85

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 4:28:03 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

Now by contrast here is a graph of Big J's results without industry.

Note in this graph the Combat group (the red line) ends up below the non-combat group (the blue line)

Which means the combat group finished the cycle with less supplies than the non combat group. This is the result I would have expected to find from years of playing WitP and AE.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by treespider -- 3/10/2010 5:00:38 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 86

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 4:35:07 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

This is interesting ...

Here is a graph of the daily difference in supply from one turn to the next.... for the groups that experienced combat in both tests.

This value is calculated, for example, by subtracting the total supply in the hex on Turn 3 from the total supply in the hex on Turn 2

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by treespider -- 3/10/2010 4:37:23 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 87

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 4:39:34 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
This is a TOTAL of all supply in the hex from Turn to Turn - note how the Non-Combat with Industry (the blue line) ends up below the Combat with Industry (the red line)

A possible explanation could be that combat or the mere presence of the enemy somehow affects the flow of resources to industry and thus interupts or hinders supply production somehow.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 88

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 4:41:02 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
This is a TOTAL of all supply in the hex from Turn to Turn - note how the Non-Combat with Industry (the blue line) ends up below the Combat with Industry (the red line)

A possible explanation could be that combat somehow affects the flow of resources to industry and thus interupts or hinders supply production somehow.

Jim

Except the opposite happened as the Combat group actually ended up with more supply than the non-combat group.

It would appear that the industry actually would have had to produce even more during the combat turns...

< Message edited by treespider -- 3/10/2010 4:44:53 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 89

RE: Artillery Testing - 3/10/2010 4:43:15 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Except the opposit happened as the Combat group actually eneded up with more supply than the non-combat group.

Yeah sorry, I worded my statement wrong, see the edited comment above. What I should have said is enemy presence (not actual combats) in the hex may have a random factor on production each turn. Sort of like a die roll to see if resources get delivered.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 90