Thread:SpFire/@comment-28112544-20180515123208/@comment-34880392-20180517173316

Well, it seems that I have missed the earlier section of your article...

At present, I still think it is better to explain 局戦 and 陸戦 together, as Land-based fighters (or Interceptors, as you like). It is a pity that the "rumour" has spread that the former has better bonus than the latter, but, in fact, there has not been strong evidence for this claim.

The avoidance of the use of "Interceptor", suggested by me, is not from militarily-correct point of view but rather a practical point of view, as it is counterintuitive that some "Interceptors" are not fully advisable to use for interception. But I do not want to involve some unnecessary argument like the Kaiboukan issue...

In How Base Defense Works section, You wrote:

>Recall the Aerial Combat table: you may shoot down 0-100% enemy planes by achieving AS+, 0-80% for AS, 0-60% for AP and so on. Notice once again that the shotdown % is subjective to RNG, ie you'll have good and bad rolls. Having a better Air Control state sets you up for a better starting position.

It is quite sure that the shot-down-ratio range differs from that of Aerial Combat, so it is probably better to omit the reference to it (and also particular ranges). In fact, I have proposed a hypothetical formulae (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YBFfNTLCcgJ0gm7H_BHNbcsNc1EIfFnwgqlxckwv0rQ/edit), which requires further investigation but may return approximate results. But it may not for beginners...

In Interceptors Shoot Down More,

>No formulae were proposed in these studies, but judging from the data I'd guess that each anti-bomb stat contributes to something like 1.5% bonus shotdown.

I think it is better to omit the figure 1.5%, as the exact shotdown bonus is a bit complicated (not for beginners). Unfortunately, I am not a student of Statistics so I cannot underline my own hypothesis very strongly... but you can find my data and report concerning the Anti-bomb bonus in #strategy.