I will carefully check your blog later, when I have enough time. What I can say at present is that we have to clarify our term what actually "Interceptor" refers to. Shouldn't we use "Land-based Fighters" instead? There are some airplanes appropriate for interception among 局戦 and 陸戦 but neither of them are designed for interception.
I very briefly touched on the difference between Interceptors and Army Fighters (in an earlier Section) and I intend to keep it simple. My blog is aimed for beginners so I want them to get started on land based planes asap (rather than believing that carrier based fighters will last them forever).
Tanaka probably had Raiden in mind when he introduced the dark green icon (and Hayabusa for the light green), but I don't intend to go deeper into militarily-correct terminologies in this particular blog. I'm happy as long as they're aware of the different icons in game and what they mean heh (and later direct their attention to anti-bomber stats). I'd avoid putting information on hold for the sake of terminologies (you may or may not be aware that the Kaiboukan classification almost pulled wikia apart).
Editing public pages, unfortunately, isn't so simple =.=
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.
>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.
I had a crude formular in mind when updating the blog, ie Shotdown % = Air Control Base % + "Interceptor" Bonus %
That proposal of yours is a lot more sophisticated and promising. I always wondered why my base can still achieve something like 80% shotdown (AS) on a bad day. I'll have to have a closer look when I have time :)
Thanks for the feedbacks, seems like I misunderstood the context of your 1st reply. I'll take your suggestions into consideration in the next update. Please keep sharing delicious info in the future too \o/