I found the interception losses bug!! Hubert listen!

[zappsweden]

The flaw with interception losses has to do with that every battle has an attacker and a defender. Interceptors will count as attackers and their enemies as defender with bonus (terrain and entrenchments). The examples below have been made with equal tech levels and all units attached to HQ.

Example 1:

UK air fleet is entrenched in mountain and attacks an axis sea port. An axis air fleet intercepts.

Result: The intercepting axis fleet will take BIG losses because it will intercept (attack) the UK fleet IN THE MOUNTAIN instead of intercepting it in the air!

Example 2:

Axis bomber attacks an UK sea port. UK air fleet (entrenched in mountain) intercepts. An axis air fleet escorts the bomber.

Result: The escort will be the attacker and take BIG losses because it will attack the interceptor in the MOUNTAIN instead of in the air.

Proposals: In interceptions and escort battles (also between air units and carriers) NO UNIT SHOULD HAVE A DEFENSE BONUS (i.e entrenchment or terrain).

Tactics for the current (flawed) system used:

Have your attacking air units in areas that have terrain bonuses (city, forrest, mountain) and preferrably entrenched because the intercepting enemy will then take BIG losses.

[ November 21, 2002, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[I/O Error]

Daaaaaamn... if this is at all true (and it sounds right now that I think about it) this is a huge problem. Technically the air battles aren't fought in the air at all, are they? They're just fought between two ground units that happen to have strike ranges of six squares or more. Ouch.

[Hubert Cater]

Interesting analysis, I'm on a mini break right now, but as soon as I get back into town next week I'll take a look.

Thanks!

Hubert

[murks]

I think this analysis is correct. The example I found was the following. I set up a trap for the Malta airfleet by moving an italian ship into it's vision which was covered by a very experienced german strength 10 airfleet. The Malta airfleet (strength 5)promptly attacked the ship and was intercepted by the german airfleet, loosing 0 points in the process. The only logical explanation to me is that the interceptor attacked the Malta airfleet in it's bunker on the island.

[JayJay_H]

Originally posted by zappsweden:

Interceptors will count as attackers and their enemies as defender with bonus (terrain and entrenchments).

You dont tell me anything new. I used that defense bonus against onslaughting russians, basing my airfleets in the carpates - i always reckon with the entrenchement value for air units, even though its not very close to real life, think its what one might call 'GAMEY'.

[I/O Error]

Not gamey. If true it's really a flaw in how the game handles air combat in general.

[zappsweden]

A new question emerges, namely

Should air units be able to entrench and/or have terrain bonuses at all?

I don't know if it was the intention of the game. maybe it was.

[I/O Error]

I certainly think that terrain bonuses and entrenchment should have no effect on aircraft. In a micro look at an air unit, you can dig in and prepare defenses. In a macro point of view like SC presents, it just doesn't make sense.

[Bruce70]

An air fleet would have a number of troops assigned to it for protection that are presumably abstracted. So it does make sense for an air unit *on the ground* to gain entrenchment. I completely agree with the interceptions analysis however, hope its not too late to make it into v1.6.

[Compassion]

Originally posted by I/O Error:

Not gamey. If true it's really a flaw in how the game handles air combat in general.

The fact that this problem exists (if true) is a flaw in the engine... IF exploited for advantage, it's gamey.

[ November 21, 2002, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Compassion ]

[dougmangin]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Interesting analysis, I'm on a mini break right now, but as soon as I get back into town next week I'll take a look.

Thanks!

Hubert

Originally posted by I/O Error:

Daaaaaamn... if this is at all true (and it sounds right now that I think about it) this is a huge problem. Technically the air battles aren't fought in the air at all, are they? They're just fought between two ground units that happen to have strike ranges of six squares or more. Ouch.

I TOLD YOU IT WAS SCREWY!!!!

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=001531

Since the post above I have changed the setups I was running to include only german and british units of the same tech level, same hq level, same experience level and running the setup one way with germans attacking and british intercepting and then start another game the other way.

In running a total of more than 100 attacks - all with the same tech level - all with the same hq level - all supplied - the german attacking units lost a total of 178 strength points, the interceptor 264.

I had not yet forwarded the results to hubert but if you have run enough similar tests that have found the same results that I have found - then I would say the proof is there.

You however were smart enough to do more than try to quantify what was happening, but also WHY. And your thinking is nothing I would have ever come up with - but it makes total and complete sense.

Entrenchment or terrain effects can have a tremendous impact on the outcome of any engagement. If Hubert can check on this and let us know if this is really the case my biggest gripe with the game will be solved.

Now I am not one to gloat - but......

[Jollyguy]

Anecdotally, I've noticed this effect also. It always seemed to me that airfleets attacking from river and swamp hexes seemed much less effective.

Whenever possible, I now try to station my airfleets in hexes that don't have terrain penalties. I guess the solution is there needs to be two combat factors: 1) Air-to-air 2) Air-to-ground.

I.e., an airfleet stationed in a city or mountain hex should be harder to attack air-to-ground. But the same unit in an air-to-air intercept should have the combat resolved by a different results table.

[pzgndr]

I guess the solution is there needs to be two combat factors: 1) Air-to-air 2) Air-to-ground

The solution should be a separate defender losses combat formula for air-to-air that excludes defender entrenchment and defense bonuses. Air attacks on air units at their base should use the standard formulas. Air attacks from bases on river hexes would also have to be checked to ensure those attacks are not being halved. Come to think of it, are rocket attacks from rivers halved? That should get fixed also, at least for any ranged attacks greater than one hex. Not sure if attacks from marsh hexes are also reduced, but they should get checked also.

Btw, this was an excellent catch. With all these modifiers, it's darn difficult to know exactly what's going on in some of these fights.

[Hubert Cater]

Anecdotally, I've noticed this effect also. It always seemed to me that airfleets attacking from river and swamp hexes seemed much less effective.

I'll have to double check but I believe this part was Ok and air units were not affected by the current terrain when attacking, I remember keeping this in mind during the coding, but there was definitly a problem with interception and escorts which I recently resolved. Attacking an airfleet directly is still treated the same and more or less the defending air fleet is treated as a ground unit in that case with appropriate defensive and entrenchment bonuses.

Hubert