Ship attractivenes |
Wed, 07 December 2005 09:05 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
I'm running a testbed where I have BBs with 12 Jihads&BCs and BBs with 16 Juggs&SBCs, both with speed 1, under default order, and firing on opponent's 2.25 speed beamer BBs with some chaff and few Jugg BBs. What is strange is that Jihad BBs always move forward in the first round, while Jugg BBs stay on the same spot in most of test runs. When I tried different orders (like any/disengage), the Jugg BBs retreated , but Jihad BBs moved up or down.
I can explain that behaviour only this way: each if my designs "feels" different attractivenes of opponent's ships. But that shouldn't hold, as they fire most of the time on the same ships. Any other ideas?
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Wed, 07 December 2005 09:08] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Ship attractivenes |
Wed, 07 December 2005 09:15 |
|
|
What are your default battle orders Iztok? If you aren't using 'maximum damage', 'maximum damage ratio' or 'maximum net damage' you aren't telling the ships to actually do anything aggressive. Using 'minimize damage to self' for instance, tells the ships not to try to get in range of longer range ships.
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Wed, 07 December 2005 09:15]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: Ship attractivenes |
Wed, 07 December 2005 13:28 |
|
|
iztok wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 14:05 | I can explain that behaviour only this way: each if my designs "feels" different attractivenes of opponent's ships. But that shouldn't hold, as they fire most of the time on the same ships. Any other ideas?
|
While building my battle simulator it became obvious that each stack needs to do 2 attractiveness calculations, one to decide what target to move towards and then one to decide what to shoot. This is because the stack might not be in range to hit it's movement target after the move.
I suppose there is no guarantee that both attractiveness calculations use exactly the same forumla in the battle engine; maybe a fix was applied to one and forgotten on the other.
So.... is it possible that the JugBBs have different movement targets as the JihadBBs, but the same shooting targets ?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Ship attractivenes |
Sun, 11 December 2005 13:01 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
LEit wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 19:50 | I don't know if this is the case or not, but ships behave differently if they expect to kill a stack then if they don't. Perhaps the Juggs could wipe out a stack, and the Jihads couldn't?
|
Thanks all for suggestions. It seems that Leit was the closest with his guess.
The testbed I've been using had only about one third of all ships I expected to see in battle. In such configiration my low number of jihad BBs probably calculated they could not achieve any kills, as opponent's beamer BBs still had shields, so they moved forward to get closer to chaff. When I increased numbers of all ships in the testbed to the size of real fleets, they suddenly started behaving "normaly".
A lesson for future testbeds: don't be avaricous, use real numbers.
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Ship attractivenes |
Fri, 16 December 2005 02:31 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
Ptolemy wrote on Fri, 16 December 2005 01:43 | You should go back and look at the battle and see what battle orders were in use
|
I admit I messed the orders. Some beamers should have stars!' default, the rest of my ships disengage orders. The idea was to sap all shields on his beamers before my missile BBs fire killing about 30% of his beamers in first, and another 20% in second round, before his beamers get the opportunity to fire on my ships, and when they'd come there, my beamers should be able to kill the remaining ones.
What happened was all main fleet was under disenagage orders, but my jugg BBs didn't retreat to the first column, chaff did, and my unjammed jugg BBs became the most attractive target in range of his jugg BBs. A third of them died in his first shot, while his unsapped first_shot beamers remained almost untouched laying waste on my fleet. The end result was a disaster for me: despite I had about 60% more firepower and 40% hitpoints there, I lost all missile ships and chaff, and 60% of beamers, while he lost 30% of beamers, 60% of missile BBs and all chaff.
Quote: | See, the best laid plans of admirals, generals and presidents often are entirely and utterly incomprehensible - even to themselves.
|
Yeah, at least by dieing most of them saved themself from being shot because of covardice in battle.
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Ship attractivenes |
Tue, 03 March 2009 18:05 |
|
PaulCr | | Chief Warrant Officer 3 Stars! V.I.P
| Messages: 187
Registered: February 2007 Location: An Island that kinda look... | |
|
Use stars calc, that does the calculation for you, it's on autohost at http://starsautohost.org/files/starscalc306.zip.
Just enter current resource, bora, armor, shields and deflectors on the ship you want to calculate the attractiveness of,
the Weapon Type and Accuracy are for the attacking ship.
If your trying to calculate the attractiveness of enemy ships then you'll have to guess at the current bora and res cost based on your estimate of his tech levels, prt and lrt since all 3 can affect the ship cost.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Ship attractivenes |
Tue, 10 March 2009 16:43 |
|
Airny | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 33
Registered: June 2008 Location: Germany | |
|
Thanks a lot!
I was using a battle simulator savegame which is all max tech.
So that the simulation would therefore give me wrong results as I understand this.
To be exact I'd need my a file with my exact techs and traits and probably a good guess for the enemie's technology.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|