How much Penalty vs Naval?

I do agree the civilopedia needs a bit of touching up as far as details like this. Anyone ever able to find out what exactly is the penalty vs naval with bombers? I was wondering why my bombers appeared to not do any more damage to ships then the fighters. Then with the fighters it says 'weak range attack' penalty but range attack is shown as 50, thats not weak. So if weak range attack is a penalty, how much penalty is it? I imagine that 50 is for air to air and maybe a little less for range ground strikes? Jet fighters have 70 range strength, more then bombers so I wonder how the weak range attack effects them since it has it there too.

So in this example... say if I have a bomber which has 60 range strength plus penalty vs naval attack a ship, is it stronger then a fighter which has 50 range stength and does not have penalty vs naval but has weak range attack? A few times it seems that the fighters may have been more effective against the ships but I have not been able to completely confirm it. The jet fighters were even stronger.

It's in the xmls hold on, I'll check.
Edit: Hrm. "weak ranged attack" promotion says "-75" ranged attack modifier, so it only attacks at a quarter of it's strength. That sounds a bit off, though.

Edit: and naval penalty is -50, so half damage.

Thanks! Wow a -75% for weak ranged attack is a lot. So using these numbers, a bomber would be 30 range strength vs a ship and jet fighter would be 17.5 and a fighter 12.5. So the strongest a plane can be vs a ship would be to have both targeting promo. Then you can add 40% on to your attack. This must be why my fighters were tearing those AI destroyers apart. I know they had at least targeting I, my planes still took a bit of damage but the ships were eventually sunk. This seems like it leaves room for a new plane. Some sort of naval, torpedo, dive or fighter bomber. It could lose all ranged and naval penalties but be weaker then a normal bomber. Maybe a 40 strength on air to ground/naval and weaker then a fighter on air to air but it can still do it.

It does seem odd. Historically (thinking ww2 here) ships were at great risk from air attack, and most naval operations during the war depended on air support.

Pearl Harbour anyone?

Yeah, generally in most tactical games air is more efficient than sea, hence the extreme power of aircraft carriers in WW2. I suppose they thought nobody would build a navy if bombers were too good or something :/

Warspite2 said:

...So in this example... say if I have a bomber which has 60 range strength plus penalty vs naval attack a ship, is it stronger then a fighter which has 50 range stength and does not have penalty vs naval but has weak range attack? A few times it seems that the fighters may have been more effective against the ships but I have not been able to completely confirm it. The jet fighters were even stronger.

Click to expand...

I've done extensive studies on this, see the link below:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9919613&postcount=14

The short version...

Fighter
50 / 1.75 (for weak ranged) = 28.57 vs Land and Naval
50 vs Air

Bomber
60 / 1.50 (for weak naval) = 40 vs Naval
60 vs Land and Air

Jet Fighter
70 / 1.75 = 40 vs Land and Naval
70 vs Air

Stealth Bomber
80 / 1.5 = 53.33 vs Naval
80 vs Land and Air

Some penalties are applied as above and some are applied more intuitively (e.g. -50% means half strength not strength divided by 1.50, which is a -33% penalty)

As a side note, I've never understood the philosophy of applying penalties in this manner. Is there a programming advantage by doing it divided by 1.5? I ask, because I've noticed that most people think -50% means half-strength, not 2/3 strength...

EDIT: Perkus is working on getting air unit odds displayed like they are for land and naval attacks. When this is finished, we will have a comprehensive odds panel that will display all of this...

BomberEscort said:

I've done extensive studies on this, see the link below:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9919613&postcount=14

The short version...

Fighter
50 / 1.75 (for weak ranged) = 28.57 vs Land and Naval
50 vs Air

Bomber
60 / 1.50 (for weak naval) = 40 vs Naval
60 vs Land and Air

Jet Fighter
70 / 1.75 = 40 vs Land and Naval
70 vs Air

Stealth Bomber
80 / 1.5 = 53.33 vs Naval
80 vs Land and Air

Some penalties are applied as above and some are applied more intuitively (e.g. -50% means half strength not strength divided by 1.50, which is a -33% penalty)

As a side note, I've never understood the philosophy of applying penalties in this manner. Is there a programming advantage by doing it divided by 1.5? I ask, because I've noticed that most people think -50% means half-strength, not 2/3 strength...

EDIT: Perkus is working on getting air unit odds displayed like they are for land and naval attacks. When this is finished, we will have a comprehensive odds panel that will display all of this...

Click to expand...

That would be because it does. I like Civ5, but did the developers not go to school or something?

Dividing by 1.5 does mean 2/3 strength, not half

Ddude97 said:

Dividing by 1.5 does mean 2/3 strength, not half

Click to expand...

I know, but Firaxis programs a 50% penalty as divided by 1.5, which is a 1/3 penalty as you note and I noted above. A 50% strength penalty should be (STR * 0.5) not (STR / 1.5) as it is now... To add to the peculiarity, they only calculate some penalties like (STR / 1.5) others they calculate as (STR * 0.5).

Note: The tooltip for WEAK_RANGED shows it as a -50% penalty, the XML shows it as -75%, and in-game it's -33% (STR / 1.5)

Ah. I understand now. Thats peculiar.