Raid

[mcaryf1]

I am possibly being remarkably dim but I would be grateful if someone could tell me how the RAID factor is applied. In the manual the formula given for damage is this:

Convoy MPP Loss = Sub strength + (Sub strength / 2 * Random Value) * City value

Does this mean that the RAID is about how often a convoy is intercepted rather than how hard and if so what does a value of 10 actually mean?

Regards

Mike

[mcaryf1]

I am really surprised that 90 or so people have viewed this question but nobody has answered as to what the RAID value actually does.

regards

Mike

[Amadeus]

I am not sure if I understand you. Convoy Loss means how much mpp you loose in a single turn. Not more not less. The real worth is shown in a window.

[xwormwood]

Let us take a look on the manual:

"...

Convoy Raiders

In addition to their regular naval combat capabilities, Subs can be selected to hunt enemy convoys in order to disrupt enemy shipping, thus reducing the enemy's potential income. Convoy paths are shown on the game play area as well as on the Convoy Map and Subs that are on or within 1 tile of the calculated convoy path are then considered in the convoy loss calculations. Subs directly on a calculated convoy path will be checked first, followed by a range check if the initial check fails. The only restrictions to Subs as convoy raiders are: 1) they must not be presently engaged with other enemy naval units; and, 2) they are currently set to Hunt mode.

Advanced Subs and Anti-Submarine Warfare research levels are considered when calculating convoy disruption amounts. If the Sub's current level is greater than the enemy's ASW level, a multiplier is first calculated as shown below:

Multiplier = 1 + Sub level - ASW level

The minimum multiplier is 1. Therefore, ASW level greater than Sub level will not affect convoy raiding results if Subs are present. Resulting enemy MPP losses, up to the maximum value of the convoy, are then determined by the following formulas:

Random Value = [(Multiplier - 1), Multiplier]

Convoy MPP Loss = Sub strength + (Sub strength / 2 * Random Value) * City value

Example: A Level 2 Sub of strength 10 versus ASW Level 1 (Multiplier = 2) could inflict 15-20 MPPs in convoy losses (10 + [5,10]), with default City value of 1 MPP. The resource MPP value of a City is included in the formula so that players may create custom campaigns that use different resource values. This allows convoy losses to be appropriately adjusted to each custom campaign's chosen scale."

And now back to your question.

Or better, the two questions (i still have a headache from reading them).

The 10 is from the EXAMPLE, correct?

So the value of 10 is the strength of the raiding sub ("... A Level 2 Sub of strength 10...").

After we found out now what the 10 actually means, you could easily answer your first question for yourself.

But in case it is still unclear:

It is about how often AND how hard a convoy gets hit.

two subs of strength 10 would be a total of strength 20.

5 subs of strength 1, 2, 2, 10 and 7 woud be a total of strength 22.

Than use the formular of the manual to calculate the possible damage on your own.

Of course, you can only damage as much MPP value as the convoy line is worth / shipping.

[mcaryf1]

Hi Xwormwood

Thank you for at least attempting to answer my question and I am sorry that I did not make it sufficiently clear.

Let me please clarify it for you. There is a value called RAID Multiplier it is set in the Editor and applies to naval or bomber units which are allowed to attack convoys. It has a range in values between 0 and 100 but it is typically set at 3 for bombers, 5 for cruisers and 10 for submarines. From the example you included in your reply it does not seem to be a multiplier with respect to the strength because the strength is taken directly as the actual strength of the attacking unit, so my question remains what is the RAID Multiplier used for?

Regards

Mike

[xwormwood]

Hi Mike.

Thanks for your answer.

No it is my turn to say sorry, as i'm not an editor buff, so i'm unfortunatly not able to help.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Mcarfy,

It looks like we still had some older information for the raiding formula... here is the new info which will be included in future games:

Multiplier = 1 + Sub level - ASW level

The minimum multiplier is 1. Therefore, ASW level greater than Sub level will not affect convoy raiding results if Subs are present. Resulting enemy MPP losses – up to the maximum value of the convoy, are then determined by formula:

Random Value = [raider strength + raider strength * (Multiplier - 1) / 2,

raider strength + raider strength * Multiplier / 2]

Convoy MPP Loss = Random Value / 10 * raider multiplier

Example: A Level 2 Sub of strength 10 versus ASW Level 1 (Multiplier = 2) with a raider multiplier of 10 could inflict 15-20 MPPs in convoy losses, i.e. [15, 20] / 10 * 10. The raider multiplier is included in the formula so that players may create custom campaigns that use different raider multiplier values as set in the Combat Target Values. This allows convoy losses to be adjusted to precisely fit the scale of each custom campaign.

[mcaryf1]

Hi Hubert

Thank you for clarifying that. Since the RAID Multiplier can go as high as 100 that might mean that the losses could be times 10 but presumeably still limited to the maximum MPP value of the convoy. In fact the value of the Merchant Ships sunk typically was similar to the cargo it was carrying so the true cost of the "loss" could be up to 2 x the MPP value carried although of course up to half of those sunk might have been returning empty!

I have been experimenting with DEs that require the major Allies to pay significant sums of MPPs to reflect the MS Tonnage losses across the various Oceans when one or more Axis or Allied raider is present. I have also required the US by means of other DEs to invest heavily in Liberty Ship production in 1942 to replace the 2,000 or so Allied ships lost since 1939. In the course of these experiments I forced the US MPPs down to zero but noticed that I could still have the US accept DEs that required it to spend more money. Effectively the lack of MPPs was not a sanction on the DEs although of course the US was unable to order any production or repairs. As far as I could tell the US income was inflated somehow so that it could meet its various commitments including convoys and accepted DEs.

Have I made some error in interpreting this or is it what you would have expected to happen?

Regards

Mike

[Hubert Cater]

Interesting analysis and to be honest I never looked into it in such detail... always so much to do on my end I often quickly move on once an aspect seems to be working sufficiently enough

[Bill101]

Hi Mike

The situation you've described where so many MPPs are eaten up by having said yes to decisions that nothing is left for production or repairs is perfectly feasible, and during that period the country in question will go overdrawn.

It is a situation that requires the player to consider every decision carefully, though it might be wise to modify the cost of some decisions if you are finding them too much. Or what triggers them, e.g. if they all happen around the same time then it might be hard to avoid the US having a negative income. Therefore if it's possible to spread their timing then it might work better?

[mcaryf1]

Hi Hubert

Actually I am not too bothered even if DEs that require spend are not inhibited if there are insufficient MPPs as the lack of subsequent production or repair on that turn would be sanction enough for my purposes. So please do not waste time fixing it even if it is some sort of bug.

It would also be totally against history to provide an economic sanction to the US which always had enough economic resources to do whatever it wanted from a production point of view. The tonnage war was really a race against time with the sanction being that the US could not bring its resources fully to bear in various theatres until it was won. In the time interval created the Axis might have been able to defeat one or more of the US Allies. I would like to reproduce this threat in SC. Ideally I want to create a series of sanctions on the US Allies that escalate for as long as the Axis are being successful with the tonnage war. It is proving a bit tricky to devise suitable chains of inter-related escalating events. I am making progress but it is possible I might end up asking you to consider implementing more sophisticated relationships between events and that might be more valuable than fixing anything wrong with DE costs.

Hi Bill

My intention was to try to create difficult decisions for the Allies and to some extent the Axis by establishing DE's that have effectively two bad effects and the player has to choose what is best in the circumstances. For example Churchill had to choose between suspending the PQ Arctic convoys, which potentially gave a morale and supply hit in the USSR (actually he did suspend them for a while after PQ 17) or the UK having to spend more resources effectively to replace the lost shipping and supplies incurred by continuing. I do not actually stop the real convoys in the game but use supply or morale events triggered by the presence of Axis units across the supply route. It is valuable that the convoy route is there as this can show the opposing player where the raider was although in the N Atlantic raiders can have an impact wider than the main convoy route as a significant number of ships were actually sunk whilst not in convoys.

Similarly the Japanese might have to divert MPPs from military production to pay the cost of extra shipping for getting food to the homeland when US subs have interdicted the food route from mainland China. For both the UK and Japan about 25% of the shipping tonnage carried food. The downside for the Axis player in the case of Japan is national morale hits from the lack of food or supply hits from the lack of oil - this was of course the real situation Japan faced in 1945.

It is difficult to apply an MPP based sanction to the US itself without seriously distorting the game and reality although I did experiment with it by demanding extra large investments in Liberty ships mentioned in the post above. The trick is to find ways that make it difficult for the US to bring its economic or military muscle to bear. Thus most of the sanction for any U Boat success in the "tonnage" war has to manifest itself in MPP or supply or morale hits in Europe or Australia/New Zealand, India, the Middle East or China. The advantage of the tonnage war for Doenitz was that it had effects all over the Allied world - as an example 4m people died in India from famine in 1942/43 partly as a result of shipping shortfalls. I am in the process of experimenting with various sanctions to give both sides a chance to get an advantage whilst the rest of the war carries on around them.

Churchill did say that the U Boat menace was the one thing that really worried him during the war and that would not be obviously true for most Allied players in the standard SC scenarios.

Regards

Mike