Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Mechanics / Task Force Training and 'edge cases'
« Last post by vorpal+5 on Today at 12:13:36 AM »
Having seen the virtue of having some decent TFT, I started to question myself on that: as all ships, even civilians have TFT, are civilians ships within a TG under combat slowing its reaction, by reducing average TFT? Should I train also my civilian tankers?
What about boarded fighters? I have non armed fighters used for various utility roles. Are they factored in the average TFT?
Is the average weighted by mass? My 30% trained carrier counting the same weight as a 125-tons pinnace?

So for now, I'm training everyone. It uses fuel though... So I would gladly like to have more precisions on TFT  :)
2
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Hazard on Yesterday at 10:48:23 PM »
Penetration Chance is (AP / Armour)^2

And death/killing chance appears to be a straight (Damage/HP) chance.

Right then, some math.

As previously calculated, the conventional Challenger tank has a 36% chance of penetrating the answer of the TN variant, a 60% chance of killing the TN variant if it penetrates and as such a 21.6% chance of killing its target on any given shot. I presume that Steve rounded to get to his 22% chance. It also has an anti personnel weapon with 6 shots but we're ignoring it. While it would be a factor in battle, it would make a killing blow maybe once every 400 shots, so can be neglected.

The TN variant, in contrast, has a 277% chance of penetrating, so it can't fail. It also has a 166.6...% chance of destroying its target on a hit, so it can't fail there either. Its anti personnel weapon has a 4.8% chance of striking a killing blow, and 6 shots per round. It'd on average delete an extra enemy tank every 4 rounds or so.

As such and roughly speaking, for a conventional force to effectively defeat a TN level 1 attack with the same weapons classes and number of weapons it has to outnumber its opponent somewhere between two and three to 1.

Against TN level 4 this gets worse. Not because the TN heavy gun is better, at guaranteed hit and destruction levels rate of fire is more important and that's the same, but because of the crew served anti personnel weapon. While the one in the Leman Russ is a Heavy variant, TN level 4 the multiplier is 10, and we can start our calculations from there. It has a 69.4% chance of piercing the conventional tank's armour, and a 55.55...% chance of killing the target on break through. This means it has an approximately 39% chance of killing an enemy tank. Per shot. And it gets 6.

So, abusing statistics in ways it shouldn't, I posit that a TN level 4 Challenger tank can kill 3.4 conventional tech Challengers per round, while the Challenger has a 1.2% chance of killing even 1 TN4 equivalent vehicle. It would, on average, need to shoot 83.333... times to guarantee a kill. A conventional tech force would need to outnumber a TN level 4 attacker 7 or 8 to one to not be obliterated.

A smaller number than you might've anticipated, but still something that majorly favours the TN tech. The numbers will get more skewed until the TN tech force achieves an AP of 12 and a damage of 18 on its crew served anti personnel, as at that point the anti personnel gun is also a guaranteed hit and kill weapon, letting the TN force kill 7 enemy tanks with every round they fight. Further weapons advances will not impact the TN force's effective offensive capabilities, but armour advances will of course continue to matter.

A couple of questions:
Do those limits include the HQ itself?

Can we get integer multiples between each size? (Currently it's 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2.5, 5, 4, 4 - Which just seems odd. Especially as a multiple of 2 feels inefficient.)

Historically, higher to lower command ratios have shifted between 2 and 5, with conscripts and militia more often approaching 5 lower commands to each higher command and more professional and elite formations more often 2 or 3 direct lower commands per higher command. This ignores things like company level attachments that serve as a regimental heavy artillery section, the signal unit or other small units of specialists. Those would skew things quite a bit if we counted them, because you can easily have half a dozen of those attached at the regimental or division level.
3
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Shiwanabe on Yesterday at 09:00:49 PM »
I've finalised the HQ components. There are 9, with command ratings (in tons) of 1250, 2500, 5k, 10k, 20k, 50k, 250k, 1m, 4m.

All but the last three are available from the start. The last three are 10k, 20k and 40k RP. There should be sufficient options for a variety of different formation sizes and some army-level HQs.

A couple of questions:
Do those limits include the HQ itself?

Can we get integer multiples between each size? (Currently it's 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2.5, 5, 4, 4 - Which just seems odd. Especially as a multiple of 2 feels inefficient.)
4
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by snapto on Yesterday at 08:39:13 PM »
Great stuff Steve!  Had a few questions regarding HQ/commander bonuses:

Will units at the bottom of a command hierarchy receive the full bonuses of each HQ commander in that hierarchy or will they receive fractions of each HQ commander's bonuses? Also, will there be different types of bonuses for an HQ leader - say more strategic bonuses for higher ranking leaders and more tactical bonuses for lower ranked leaders?  Also, at what point (distance) will the command hierarchy be broken (will all units need to be on the same planet,system,sector, etc)?  Finally, if an HQ unit is damaged, does it still provide its full bonus(es)?
5
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Yesterday at 07:09:49 PM »
I'm not sure your math works out. Chance to pierce the armour is ((Armour Value)/Armour Piercing value)^2, right? because if I run those numbers, (20/12)^2 is distinctly not 0.36 , but 2.7777... Which is a marked difference in armour penetration between the two chances of penetration. And it'd be odd if the higher tech tank performed more poorly than the lower tech one.

Penetration Chance is (AP / Armour)^2
6
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Hazard on Yesterday at 05:23:40 PM »
The gameplay reason is to avoid having very large hierarchies filled with formations with no commanders and relatively junior officers at the top. By removing bonuses from formations without specified commanders, players have to create realistic command hierarchies, comprising between size and availability of commanders. It also avoids a potential exploit of creating a lot of very small formations to generate benefits from multi-level hierarchies, because you would need too many commanders to accomplish that (although you can still do it on a smaller scale for specialist units). On the other hand, creating a few very large formations making transport more difficult, reduces flexibility and does not allow for unused commanders to gain experience. In-game, that does translate to a situation where the assumption is that 'non-named' commanders are not skilled enough to benefit from their superiors.

Given the flexibility in command size we'll be seeing, will there be a way for players to adjust the rank ratios?

I've finalised the HQ components. There are 9, with command ratings (in tons) of 1250, 2500, 5k, 10k, 20k, 50k, 250k, 1m, 4m.

All but the last three are available from the start. The last three are 10k, 20k and 40k RP. There should be sufficient options for a variety of different formation sizes and some army-level HQs.

Translating to infantry numbers, this means 250 troops, 500 troops, 1000 troops, 2000 troops, 4000 troops, 10 000 troops, 50 000 troops, 200 000 troops and 800 000 troops.

It also means that ground forces will have 9 or 10 (ish) promotion levels to play with. Expect players to optimize, heavily, towards the maximum weight limits and occasionally skip one level. 1250 ton Planetary Defense formations will probably have only a handful of units in them (STO and CIWS units are huge), or will simply use a larger HQ for convenience rather than to stack as many bonuses as possible.

BTW, the conventional vehicles work out pretty well in terms of matching real life. The real Challenger is 62 tons, while the Warrior is 25 tons. I tried to simulate the main gun and machine for the Challenger and the 30mm autocannon on the Warrior. In fact, as a result of this I will probably add an additional type of weapon, somewhere between anti-personnel and anti-tank to simulate the fast firing weapons of the Warrior or Bradley.

It's a Light Anti Vehicle Weapon. No seriously, that's its job. However, because it's fairly fast firing it's also great as an infantry support weapon meant to destroy lightly fortified positions or suppress enemy infantry formations.

Someone asked about conventional ground forces so I thought some comparisons may be interesting.

I'm not sure your math works out. Chance to pierce the armour is ((Armour Value)/Armour Piercing value)^2, right? because if I run those numbers, (20/12)^2 is distinctly not 0.36 , but 2.7777... Which is a marked difference in armour penetration between the two chances of penetration. And it'd be odd if the higher tech tank performed more poorly than the lower tech one.

7
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Yesterday at 03:55:20 PM »
Someone asked about conventional ground forces so I thought some comparisons may be interesting.

The first two vehicles here are a Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank and a Warrior AFV, both in service with the British Army. The Challenger has a base type of Vehicle, while the Warrior is a new base type, Light Vehicle, which is 12 tons and has a single component slot. The base armour and weapon modifiers are 3 (compared to 10 for all the other screenshots so far). 3 is the new rating for conventional armour (2 in VB6 Aurora) and 3 is also the minimum weapon modifier for ground unit classes.

The third screenshot is the same Challenger tank, but with base armour and weapon modifiers of 5, which is effectively Trans-Newtonian tech level 1. The conventional Challenger would have a 36% chance of penetrating the armour of this upgraded vehicle and a 60% chance of a kill if it did so (22% overall chance to kill). With superior numbers, the conventional forces would be able to put up a fight.

The final screenshot is a TL 4 heavy vehicle, which would be a fairly common type of tank at that level. TL4 is ceramic composite armour and 20cm lasers, with armour/weapon modifiers of 10. It isn't just a higher level of base technology (giving higher modifiers) that the conventional vehicles will have to face, but larger opponents with improved armour and weapons. The conventional Challenger has a 4% chance of penetrating the armour and a 30% chance of a kill if the armour is penetrated (1.2% overall chance to kill). This is more like war of the worlds :)

Conventional forces will be able to research larger vehicles and weapons (the modern US army building a 500 ton tank with a massive gun), but they will still be handicapped by their lower overall technology. Overall though, this should make TN vs conventional battles a lot more interesting, especially if the conventional side has a large numerical advantage.

BTW, the conventional vehicles work out pretty well in terms of matching real life. The real Challenger is 62 tons, while the Warrior is 25 tons. I tried to simulate the main gun and machine for the Challenger and the 30mm autocannon on the Warrior. In fact, as a result of this I will probably add an additional type of weapon, somewhere between anti-personnel and anti-tank to simulate the fast firing weapons of the Warrior or Bradley.







8
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Yesterday at 12:40:41 PM »
I've finalised the HQ components. There are 9, with command ratings (in tons) of 1250, 2500, 5k, 10k, 20k, 50k, 250k, 1m, 4m.

All but the last three are available from the start. The last three are 10k, 20k and 40k RP. There should be sufficient options for a variety of different formation sizes and some army-level HQs.
9
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Yesterday at 10:38:05 AM »
One request I have for ground forces is that we be able to transport ground troops and their equipment on colony ships and cargo ships.

More specifically, be able to split a ground formation into it's personnel and equipment separately, load them onto colony ships and cargo ships respectively, then unload and combine them at their destination.

This would allow much larger formations to be transported between friendly staging areas, but not be deploy-able directly into combat. Like using a container ship to transport tanks and equipment, and sending the troops on a cruise ship.

The way the ground units are setup, there is no division between equipment and personnel. I avoided that deliberately because of the complexities involved.
10
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Yesterday at 10:36:17 AM »
I know that Steve wants to keep it simple, but my feel is that 'abandon drop' will be used exclusively against defended targets. If this always damages the bay, and you can only fix it at a yard, there is no point in building non-drop bay equipped transports ever, making it pointless to even implement those.

Non-drop bays are commercial, while the other bays are military.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10