AA combat formula

[steven8r]

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

What about AA units outside of a city?

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

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

Steven

[swat-spas2]

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

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

[Cookie Monster]

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

What about AA units outside of a city?

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

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

Steven

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

[steven8r]

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

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

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

Steven

[Jaybe]

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

Sounds like an excellent idea.

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

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

[MrWhereItsAt]

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

[Xorbon]

Stealth Planes

Before my rant/idea, I want to say to Alexman for figuring out the AA formula.

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

[Kuciwalker]

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

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

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Stealth Planes

Originally posted by Xorbon
Before my rant/idea, I want to say to Alexman for figuring out the AA formula.

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

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

[Xorbon]

Re: Re: Stealth Planes

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

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

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

[Jaybe]

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

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

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

Is it possible that hitpoint difference can affect results??

[alexman]

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

[Jaybe]

No, hit points had no effect in my tests.

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

Thanx.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: Re: Stealth Planes

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

The AA in effect does intercept planes, it's just they always die when it does but to be more precise I meant that the A/(A+D) value would be multiplied by the Stealth interception chance. Thus, all stealth units would have a 5% chance of dying to an AA, because (in my solution) D = 0 and A/(A+0) = 1.

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

I'm wary of adding yet another unit stat.

[player1]

Bump!


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


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