Arctic Subs

[Zombie69]

That's what i said. You're winning the 5% battles 5% of the time.

 

[Artanis]

That's what i said. You're winning the 5% battles 5% of the time.

*rereads*

Ah, gotcha. I must've misread the tone of your post

 

[shadow2k]

Huh, no. It has to do with the fact that you're supposed to win a 5% battle 5% of the time!

It comes fairly close to those percentages, but there is still a randomness to each battle. So it will never be deadly accurate, and can't be.

Think about it. If you are supposed to win 99% of the battles, how is it chosen which one out of 100 you lose? You will win almost all of them, but here and there, you lose one. You may lose three out of 100 (3%), but overall, it stays pretty close to the odds you see. And if you fought 200 more battles, perhaps it would even out to the given odds. Like the poster before said, you tend to remember only the ones that seem to defy the odds, even though those are actually just the ones making the odds even out.

This is all statistical probability. The more chances you give it to even out, the more accurate the percentages will become.

 

[Zombie69]

Of course there is a randomness to each battle. That's the whole point of the 95% chance listed! If there were no randomness, then the chance would really be 100%, would it not? When the game lists a 95% chance to win a given battle, that's exactly what you have : a 95% chance to win the battle.

The battle is played out in rounds using the strengths of each unit and applying that to random number generator in order to decide which unit gets a hit, as described in the "Combat explained" thread. But the 95% tells you what's your chance of winning the battle when all is said and done and all the rounds have been played out. There's nothing else to it.

The 95% IS deadly accurate. It's your EXACT chance of winning this one single battle.

 

[Thalassicus]

If you attack an equal number of hammers of subs vs battleships (2250 hammers, 15 vs 10), the attacker will lose an average of 28 hammers per battle, while the defender loses an average of 4.6.

24-strength subs with Flanking II attacking 40-strength Battleships with Combat II have a 0.8% chance of killing the battleship, with an average 72 health remaining on the defender. Subs attacking a 28-strength battleship (72 health) after one prior attack have 4.2% odds of success. So on average each attack of a sub vs a battleship will result in a net loss of hammers. You can confirm these odds in game, and with this combat calculator.

Subs actually counter destroyers right now (it's crazy I know). Since subs have a strength of 24 vs a destroyer's 30 and a battleship's 40, and destroyers are only slightly less expensive than battleships, submarines are excellent at killing a large stack of destroyers. Of course, battleships are too...

Take that as you will, but submarines and destroyers are both pretty useless right now

How the developers balance it is up to them, but I think a straight-up combat bonus would be too ordinary. Something much more interesting would be to add a new ability to subs, like a Torpedo order that deals 20% damage to one unit in a stack, and can be intercepted by Destroyers.

 

[MyOtherName]

If you attack an equal number of hammers of subs vs battleships (2250 hammers, 15 vs 10), the attacker will lose an average of 28 hammers per battle, while the defender loses an average of 4.6.

Take that as you will, but submarines and destroyers are both pretty useless right now

No, all you've shown is that submarines aren't that great when you're fighting 15 vs 10. People have been trying to say all thread that with subs, you can manage much more favorable combats.

Because of their high withdraw chance, submarines have a huge advantage (much more so than most other units would in a similar situation) when building 15 subs, and then taking down two separate stacks of 5 battleships each. (Or 5 separate stacks of 2 battleships each, etc)

 

[Wodan]

24-strength subs with Flanking II attacking 40-strength Battleships with Combat II have a 0.8% chance of killing the battleship, with an average 72 health remaining on the defender. Subs attacking a 28-strength battleship (72 health) after one prior attack have 4.2% odds of success. So on average each attack of a sub vs a battleship will result in a net loss of hammers.

How the developers balance it is up to them, but I think a straight-up combat bonus would be too ordinary. Something much more interesting would be to add a new ability to subs, like a Torpedo order that deals 20% damage to one unit in a stack, and can be intercepted by Destroyers.

This analysis seems to be ignoring that subs retreat. (To reinforce what MyOtherName said.)

Yes, everyone admits that the first sub to attack has pretty much no chance of winning. However, more often than not, it will survive and retreat, at no loss of hammers to the attacker.

The key thing here is that now the battleship is damaged. The second sub attacks, and now is favored to win, at a net loss of hammers to the battleship owner.

More often than not, the subs owner has not lost a thing. All he has to do is rest/repair the subs for a couple of turns. (Under the icepack, in a friendly city, in a stack with 1 battleship for protection, etc.)

Wodan

 

[Artanis]

To elaborate further on what Wodan said, the retreat chance is VERY important.

Sure, Subs will get spanked by Battleships 15 v 10. However, if the Sub user turns that into 10 seperate 5 v 1 fights, the Battleship user will have lost 1 ship per matchup, and the Submarine user will have lost at most 1 Sub per fight due to the retreat chance. After 10 fights, this leaves all the Battleships at the bottom of the ocean while the Sub user finds himself well ahead in Hammers and still has a fleet of at least 5 operational Submarines that can now have their way with enemy sea assets.

 

[AngryPants]

Don't forget the ultimate advantage of Subs: initiative. You fight when you feel like it, not when your opponent feels like it.

 

[Wodan]

Don't forget the ultimate advantage of Subs: initiative. You fight when you feel like it, not when your opponent feels like it.

Well, to play devil's advocate, the ultimate advantage of Battleships: You don't really care, you fight whenever you darn well want to.

Wodan

 

[Thalassicus]

The above odds do take into account an 80% chance to withdraw (Flanking II). If submarines attack an equal hammer-cost of battleships, the attacker will lose an average of 441/2250 hammers; the defender will lose an average of 68/2250 hammers, a 5:1 ratio. The surviving submarines will be at about 5% health; the battleships will have about 45%. On the other hand, if battleships attack an equal hammer-cost of battleships, the attacker has a 1:1 hammer loss ratio.

The key thing here is that now the battleship is damaged. The second sub attacks, and now is favored to win, at a net loss of hammers to the battleship owner.

This is actually not the case, unfortunatly.

With one attack, there are (rounded to the nearest unit) 20% odds of the submarine dying, 0.9% odds of the battleship dying, and 80% odds of neither dying. The battleship will have an average of 72/100 health remaining.

When a second submarine attacks, the odds of the submarine dying are 19%, the battleship is 4%, and neither is 76%. Second-battles are still 1:5 odds in survivability in favor of a battleship.

So even if you attack a stack of battleships with twice their number in submarines (1.5 times the number of hammers invested), you will have a net loss of hammers. Withdrawn submarines are also left at around 5% health, while battleships after two attacks will have an average of 45% health remaining. With a destroyer to spot, the attacker loses even more hammers the following turn.

It seems that to break even in hammers lost, the attacker would have to have invest more than 150%-200% times the number of hammers as their opponent (for submarines vs battleships). Whereas with battleships vs battleships, the break-even point is 100%. As a result, as far as I can tell in even engagements, battleships always have a better hammer ratio than submarines.

Either way, it's pretty obvious that submarines are better vs destroyers than battleships, which doesn't make much sense (hence the suggestion above for the Torpedo ability).

I don't exactly see what you are saying, but I'll try and read over the previous posts and think it through. I'm trying to use this information to balance out a third gameplay mechanic: ship boarding (capture). In this case, if you win you not only survive, but also gain a hammer value equal to the opposing ship.

 

[Ozyman8]

A wolfpack of 3 submarines (flanking i/ii, flanking i/ii, medic i) kills a battleship 89.26% of the time, losing on average 0.36 submarines per engagement.

Thalassicus, here's what I get simulating Submarine vs Battleship combat:

Chance to win vs 1 units 0.9616021998226643
Chance to win vs 2 units 0.5966325590938416
Chance to win vs 3 units 0.21986658423844893
Chance to win vs 4 units 0.058856228012046666

The Battleship has an average of 67/100 health remaining after the first submarine. Can you explain how you figure the battlship will win the second fight 5/6 times??

 

[Ozyman8]

Thalassicus, when I hand-calculate it comes out the same. it's a close fight, not 5:1 in favor of the battleship.

** Second Battle **

Attacker odds of hitting: 47% = 24/(24 + .67*40)
Defender odds of hitting: 53% = 100-47.24
Attacker Damage: 15 = 20*(112/144) = 20*(3*24+40)/(3*40+24)
Defender Damage: 25 = 20*(144/112)

Attacker HP: 100
Defender HP: 67

Simulation #1: Submarine wins after 6 rounds.
Simulation #2: Submarine wins after 8 rounds.
Simulation #3: Battleship wins after 8 rounds.
Simulation #4: Submarine wins after 8 rounds.
Simulation #5: Submarine wins after 8 rounds
Simulation #6: Battleship wins after 7 rounds.

They hit 50% of the time. The submarine needs to score five hits. the battleship needs to four. Assuming Flanking II, the Submarine wins 30% of the time, retreats 56% of the time, and is destroyed 14% of the time.

 

[Wodan]

I don't exactly see what you are saying, but I'll try and read over the previous posts and think it through. I'm trying to use this information to balance out a third gameplay mechanic: ship boarding (capture). In this case, if you win you not only survive, but also gain a hammer value equal to the opposing ship.

I'll buy your numbers about the 2nd Sub not having the odds in his favor... I misspoke. Still, all along we've been saying it will take 3 subs.

The difference is that:

1) The AI doesn't send Battleships around in stacks. Any analysis based on stacks will have to be limited to (theoretically) some MP games, and assumes the defending human is sufficiently wary and has bothered to build "a stack" of battleships.

2) Against 1 or 2 Battleships, one need merely send in however many Subs are needed to kill the Battleship. Probably 3 (6 against a pair). With Flanking II, the odds are in favor of the Subs producing an advantageous Hammer-loss ratio. Rarely, you'll lose 2 subs in the fight. Sometimes 1. Most often, 0. Bottom line is a dead battleship.

Wodan

 

[Zombie69]

Most often you'll lose 1 sub, not 0. Still, a very good trade off.

 

[puglover]

Subs can go under ice, huh? That's seriously cool! Thanks for the tip.

 

[Charles 22]

I think I favor the battleship overall, but don't forget the other advantages.

1. The destroyer has by far the best range, thus is the best fire brigade to stop incursions. It's bombardment doesn't seem to be very much lower than the BB (battleship) for some reason, thus another advantage (normally BB's main guns are thrice the size of destroyers, and the secondary guns being much more numerous).

2. BB's simply cannot attack subs on their own, as they can't see them. They can only hope the sub attacks them. Failing that, then you have to bring a DD (destroyer) along with it so it can attack subs if it so chooses.

3. SS's (subs) have one advantage few seems to remember, and that is stealth, which enables them to gang up on various areas with the distinct possibility the enemy thinks the waters are completely clear. They're, of course, very good monitors of vast areas of the sea such that no ship could get by undetected. I'm not too sold on promoting flanking ability, since that ability is already quite high in the first place.

So as I see things, the SS/DD tandem works best. Your subs cover the seas watching movement and occasionally going after suckers, while your DD's stick by the ports and prepare to meet the invaders before they reach the shore. The ideal would be to attack with enemy ships with DD's first hand, and then to use an SS or two to mop up.

BB's would be good for offensives primarily, but as said before would require a considerable escort.

 

[carn]

I'm not too sold on promoting flanking ability, since that ability is already quite high in the first place.

The flanking ability is the better, the higher the initial retreat chance is.
Just think for a moment, whether anyone would consider subs to be underpowered, if they had 70% base retreat chance - with flanking 2, that would be a guaranteed survival on attacking!!

50% base retreat i think is around the point, where flanking gets better than combat.

Carn

 

[carn]

1) The AI doesn't send Battleships around in stacks. Any analysis based on stacks will have to be limited to (theoretically) some MP games, and assumes the defending human is sufficiently wary and has bothered to build "a stack" of battleships.

Wodan

Even in MP games subs could play a role, as they either can be used to scout for BB stacks and to ensure that own BBs do collateral damage first. That works until the enemy starts to add DDs to the stacks, but then he weakens the stacks overall power, in which case the subs also done something good.

Also, what so far nobody mentioned, 2 subs destroy a carrier easily and that thing is normally worth 175+3*150=625 hammers and subs might have a better chance to sneak upon a carrier compared to BBs.

Carn

 

[carn]

3. SS's (subs) have one advantage few seems to remember, and that is stealth, which enables them to gang up on various areas with the distinct possibility the enemy thinks the waters are completely clear. They're, of course, very good monitors of vast areas of the sea such that no ship could get by undetected. I'm not too sold on promoting flanking ability, since that ability is already quite high in the first place.

And this "stealth -> gang up" combines excelently with a high retreat chance, because destroying 1 BB with 6 BBs means the loss of 0.57 BBs on average, while 9 subs against 1 BB means a lot less hammers lost to destroy the BB.

So subs can mass undetected to a attack a non-stacked target and are the most cost efficient way to do such a attack.

Carn