Re: Doing the math
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I've been watching this thread but I had nothing to say before this. What size the enemy ships were? If they were small ships (light cruisers or smaller) they have built-in defence bonus.

Religious facilities and higher ship/fleet experience has already mentioned. Fleets get experience pretty slow but ships has 30% after few battles. Btw I have had once in my PBW history legendary (+40%) fleet and ships and I can say it was a powerful combination http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Doing the math
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Re: Doing the math
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oops, I should have read more carefully.

tbontob, is it possible that there was a religious shrine?

[ May 19, 2003, 13:18: Message edited by: Asmala ]

Re: Doing the math
 

I don't think so, there should be no religious facilities involved, so no 15% combat bonus, and no 15% domage bonus.

But it could be a good explanation, as from 50% it would come to 35% to hit at point blank. Which is a huge pain.

But I am curious about tbontob's test, as it assume all weapons fire at point blank range, which is a non sense.

[ May 19, 2003, 13:31: Message edited by: Unknown_Enemy ]

Re: Doing the math
 

Hi guys

Leave for a couple of hours and the thread takes off like topsy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Maybe an explanation is in order. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

My real opponent and I have yet to fight a battle. This is my first end game and I have come up against that (shudder) horrors-of-horrors, the talisman.

I read in a number of threads that the talisman is so threatening that most players do not want to face the talisman in the end game and will try to eliminate the Religious player early.

So I thought I’d test it and see what all the kafluffle was about. So, the stuff about my real opponent was and is just background. I know he is reading this thread and I am sure he is finding it interesting. Maybe we can both learn something about it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Aware of the deficiencies of the simulator, I created a game to test it.

The test game is a standard, non-modded game.

The test parameters are as stipulated in the original post. The test opponent has only 120 fleet/ship experience. Whether, my real opponent has more is another question but it is not really relevant.

I groaned when it was mentioned that a Deeply Religious player may get additional in-system bonuses…as if my real adversary doesn’t have enough of an advantage. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

But, I double checked my test game. Where the battle took place, and there were no in-system facilities which may give the Religious player a benefit.

Unknown enemy did mention, that it is unrealistic that all weapons will fire at point blank range and of course he is right. But with combat replay, it is possible to get an idea of the number of hits made by those ships which do fire at point blank range (i.e. the ships are adjacent to each other).

Re: Doing the math
 

How are you factoring into your simulations the training aspect? Or are you just assuming equal levels of training and so canceling that out? (I think I answered my own question. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

Re: Doing the math
 

Another question. Is it possible his shots are taking out your combat sensors early on and thus accounting for the greater then expected number of misses by your ships? Losing that 65% would make it very difficult to hit him. You should be able to confirm this in the simulator, but it will take a veery careful examination and checking each ship as it is damaged.

Geoschmo

Re: Doing the math
 

I redid the test. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But first it may be worthwhile to state the conditions under which I made the original test. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

1) The original test was meant to just give some idea on the hits and misses. Getting definitive data was not a priority.
2) My original thoughts/calculations were that I should have 50% hits at point blank range (See original post).
3) At point blank range, it is extremely difficult to accurately count the number of hits and misses.
4) I did know I wasn't getting 50% and the 1 sector distance does account for 10%.
5) The number of hits are based on chance, so just like you can have a coin toss and out of 100 tosses get 30 heads, so too can you get 20 or 30 weapon hits out of a hundred. Since it is chance, on the next test you can get 70 heads out of a hundred coin tosses, and 50 or 60 weapon hits out of a hundred. But statistically, out of all the coin tosses we should get 50 heads and in my case 40 weapon hits out of a 100 weapon firings at point blank range.
6) Complicating matters immensely was my inability to actually count the number of hits and misses at point blank range. It happens so fast. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

So, how to test this and get accurate data for you guys. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

It suddenly hit me that I do not have to count the number of hits at point blank range. Counting the hits at range two or three would be much easier, as the delay between firings would be greater.

With some messing about, I finally got my ships to shoot first at 3 combat sectors distance.

Counted the number of hits (twice)...11.
Counted the number of shots (twice)...55

Percentage hits...20%, right on the money with 50% - 30% = 20% probability.

If I tested it again, I may get a higer percentage of hits than probability. Or maybe a lower one. But in the long run, I feel cofident that I will get the required number of hits in accordance with the calculations. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif