OMG I started a math riot! :-o
Am I doing something wrong with TripleA battle calculator:
1 bomber vs 1 AAA should have a 5/6 chance of winning with a TUV swing of 5/65-1/612 =2.16
Results of calculation (2000 runs) = 100% chance of attacker winning with a TUV swing of 5. Am I doing something wrong or is the calculator wrong? I tried running larger battles such as a siege of Moscow and the results seem incorrect.
Engine Version: 1.8.0.9 Game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition Game Version:3.9
Elk, you also have to remember that destroyed planes are also removed from further rounds of combat, and as they are often your heaviest hitters and taken last as casualties, this can swing battle odds more than an infantry would.
Regardless, in the big battles I’ve calculated buying some AAA vs infantry, the resulting odds for the attacker aren’t usually more than a percentage point or two different. You buy the AAA because you’re hoping for a lucky roll to decimate the attacker.
And once in a while a nice little cluster of AA guns might be just enough to dissuade your opponent from attacking in the first place.
8-)
@Arthur:
Am I doing something wrong with TripleA battle calculator:
1 bomber vs 1 AAA should have a 5/6 chance of winning with a TUV swing of 5/65-1/612 =2.16Results of calculation (2000 runs) = 100% chance of attacker winning with a TUV swing of 5.� Am I doing something wrong or is the calculator wrong?� I tried running larger battles such as a siege of Moscow and the results seem incorrect.
Engine Version: 1.8.0.9 Game: World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition Game Version:3.9
Works for me?
Sometimes the calculator doesn’t load existing units correctly, maybe that is what happened?
The webpage calculator doesn’t allow for the hit taken by the AAA - assumes a classic AA gun.
And once in a while a nice little cluster of AA guns might be just enough to dissuade your opponent from attacking in the first place.
8-)
Yeah, this.
I’d generally never buy an AA gun because there are better ways to spend the money. That doesn’t mean that I think of AA guns as being largely useless, and I might buy a few if I didn’t have any, but I typically think that the number each nation starts out with, is quite sufficient.
But if I have a factory in a remote location, none of my original AA guns is nearby, and an enemy attack with one or more planes is about to happen, then I might buy one, if only for psychological reasons. I’ve noticed that some players can hardly bear the thought of losing one of their precious aircraft to an AA gun, so they may skip or postpone their attack, or try it anyway, but without the planes. If the AA gun scares the enemy plane(s) out of the attack, it’s been worth its money most of the time.
The calculation is correct. The battle calculator (omg run hide!) does take first strike into effect and determines the inf is a better play in pretty much any situation you can think of. Fire up Triple A, load up a map, and run some calculations. Only place it doesn’t hold is if the inf is guaranteed to die 1st round. That 3-hit AAA volley is actually just a 1 in 216 scenario (with 2-hit not better than 1 in 30) and doesn’t have as much game impact as an inf’s ability to roll a die every combat round.
Checking it out in the Triple-A calculator
100 inf + 10 fighters vs 80 inf = 32.xx attackers remaining
100 inf + 10 fighters vs 77 inf + 3 AAA = 28 attackers remaining.
The calculation is correct. The battle calculator (omg run hide!) does take first strike into effect and determines the inf is a better play in pretty much any situation you can think of. Fire up Triple A, load up a map, and run some calculations. Only place it doesn’t hold is if the inf is guaranteed to die 1st round. That 3-hit AAA volley is actually just a 1 in 216 scenario (with 2-hit not better than 1 in 30) and doesn’t have as much game impact as an inf’s ability to roll a die every combat round.
Checking it out in the Triple-A calculator
100 inf + 10 fighters vs 80 inf = 32.xx attackers remaining
100 inf + 10 fighters vs 77 inf + 3 AAA = 28 attackers remaining.
Doesn’t seems a significant difference over such large stack 4/110 units (3.6%) in an almost optimal scenario for AAA.
Infantry have more mobility, offensive capacity. AAA cannot be part of an attack in amphibious assault, it cannot be loaded in CM to be unloaded in NCM.
The versatility effect on tactics of Infantry cannot be considered through calculator.
And once in a while a nice little cluster of AA guns might be just enough to dissuade your opponent from attacking in the first place.
8-)
We can call it the fear factor.
It is psychological, but staying on a rational level adding three 5 IPCs AAA instead of five 3 IPCs Infantry is more like a gambler sweepstake than a sound optimized strategy.
It seems there is only a very few conditions in which it worth to buy AAAs.
The circumstance comes up almost every single game: a final raid on Moscow. Usually you know that the Germans have one or two rounds to do the attack and then have to return their planes to western Europe to defend against Allied invaders. Russia must choose how to spend their final 10-15 PUs. The choice might only change the outcome by a couple percentage points, but why not take the best odds.
@Arthur:
The circumstance comes up almost every single game: a final raid on Moscow. Usually you know that the Germans have one or two rounds to do the attack and then have to return their planes to western Europe to defend against Allied invaders. Russia must choose how to spend their final 10-15 PUs. The choice might only change the outcome by a couple percentage points, but why not take the best odds.
IMO, a unit which is only good to purchase in this particular condition should be improve to be balanced vs other units specially Infantry, since it is THE fodder unit par excellence, and AAA are meant to be use as fodder too after the initial combat round, since they have no attack value.
Also, can we really compare 2 AAAs (10 IPCs) with 1 Fighter and the tactical possibility it can generate?
Perhaps keep it at 5IPC but make it roll @2 but only for up to 2 planes? Reduces the wildness of the swings it causes slightly.
Perhaps keep it at 5IPC but make it roll @2 but only for up to 2 planes? Reduces the wildness of the swings it causes slightly.
I read somewhere in this forum, a long time ago that Airplanes casualty due to AA fire was 10%.
Rising AAA to 33% odds might not be agreeable to a lot of people here.
Even the 1/6 was already higher odds than historical fact.
@Arthur:
The circumstance comes up almost every single game: a final raid on Moscow. Usually you know that the Germans have one or two rounds to do the attack and then have to return their planes to western Europe to defend against Allied invaders. Russia must choose how to spend their final 10-15 PUs. The choice might only change the outcome by a couple percentage points, but why not take the best odds.
the best odds are going to be with purchasing an infantry, not an AA
unless you are so badly outgunned that that final stand for Moscow is a 1-round massacre.
Interesting how one little poll about something so seemingly insignificant as AAA becomes a multi-page debate about the merits or lack thereof using calculations, probabilities and psychological warfare… all over a AAA battery.
I think AA artillery should get at least 1@1 each no matter how few planes are attacking. Therefore, 3 AA on a territory being attacked by 2 planes will still get 3@1 defense.
I’ve yet to purchase any. I like AA but only use what’s available at the start of the game.
Interesting how one little poll about something so seemingly insignificant as AAA becomes a multi-page debate about the merits or lack thereof using calculations, probabilities and psychological warfare… all over a AAA battery.
Seems everyone has at one point looked at the AAA unit and a fleet of enemy planes looming and wondered it wasn’t particularly useful even in that situation.
@Baron:
Perhaps keep it at 5IPC but make it roll @2 but only for up to 2 planes? Reduces the wildness of the swings it causes slightly.
I read somewhere in this forum, a long time ago that Airplanes casualty due to AA fire was 10%.
Rising AAA to 33% odds might not be agreeable to a lot of people here.
Even the 1/6 was already higher odds than historical fact.
Two comments to that. Firstly, it’s a game. Shouldn’t we be talking about what makes a better one? Secondly, can’t you argue that the AAA are more densely packed than they were in history?
