Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: July 23, 2020, 11:35:33 AM »Yeah that's the one.
Posted by: SERRE
« on: July 22, 2020, 11:31:43 PM »Quote from: DFNewb link=topic=11565 msg135390#msg135390 date=1590760779
The function number - N/A
The complete error text - N/A
The window affected - Ground forces
What you were doing at the time - Doing some ground combat testing
Conventional or TN start - TN
Random or Real Stars - Real
Is your decimal separator a comma? - No
Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off? - Easily reproduced
If this is a long campaign - say 75 years or longer - let me know the length of the campaign as well - Any time.
Please confirm if the following behavior is intended:
Commanders in a formation above another do not give the children formations any bonuses.
The HQ only needs to be as large as the formation NOT as large as the formation and it's children.
Ground combat Command score is the same, only needs to be as large as the formation not including it's children.
Not investigated - would be great if a bugmod with more ground force experience could look at it
Gyrfalcon - 2/7/20 - This is a known bug with a known cause. Not yet resolved. I believe the knock on effect explains the other two - negative malus from not having enough formation size for the subformations are not passed on either.
Not this one?
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: July 22, 2020, 04:24:53 PM »I thought for sure that it would have been reported but it hasn't been or at least I couldn't find a report. Please make one or point me to the existing report if you know of one and I'll flag it up for Steve.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: July 02, 2020, 02:04:52 PM »Yes... I think I figured that one out... commanders on higher levels don't seem to provide any bonuses to troops below them. That is obviously a bug... have anyone reported that?!?
I would personally still make the hierarchy as it was intended until the bug is fixed... that is not working as intended. I don't game the game as such.
I would personally still make the hierarchy as it was intended until the bug is fixed... that is not working as intended. I don't game the game as such.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: July 02, 2020, 12:58:51 PM »I'd probably choose between MAA and HAA based on the damage profile - I figure in general the force hierarchy will be arranged as a flat tree, with one central rear-echelon formation that can hold all the logistics trucks and AA, and then all the other formations directly attached to that.
If the command hierarchy actually worked the way I thought it was supposed to, with the parent formations needing to have command capacity for their subordinates and passing down bonuses, there might be more pressure to be able to use HAA so you can have the AA as an independent subsidiary formation instead, and a deeper hierarchy. But those aren't the rules, at least in the current version.
How does it work... is there some bug that I have missed in regard to the hierarchy?
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: July 02, 2020, 11:17:19 AM »I'd probably choose between MAA and HAA based on the damage profile - I figure in general the force hierarchy will be arranged as a flat tree, with one central rear-echelon formation that can hold all the logistics trucks and AA, and then all the other formations directly attached to that.
If the command hierarchy actually worked the way I thought it was supposed to, with the parent formations needing to have command capacity for their subordinates and passing down bonuses, there might be more pressure to be able to use HAA so you can have the AA as an independent subsidiary formation instead, and a deeper hierarchy. But those aren't the rules, at least in the current version.
If the command hierarchy actually worked the way I thought it was supposed to, with the parent formations needing to have command capacity for their subordinates and passing down bonuses, there might be more pressure to be able to use HAA so you can have the AA as an independent subsidiary formation instead, and a deeper hierarchy. But those aren't the rules, at least in the current version.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: July 02, 2020, 06:52:47 AM »
So long-range mobile artillery with heavy armor would be the best arty in your opinion?
What about anti-air? For me it would have to be heavy AA since I want to to cover other formations. Or maybe its better for every formation to have its own native AA ability.
I have to state though that neither side was fortified in this fight so losses was very high on both sides... but during an attack you are not likely to have any fortification to start with anyway. For each Heavy Vehicle, heavy armour with dual MBL a defending garrison could afford 9 artillery pieces in simple light armoured emplacement with a minimum of 6 fortification. So having your artillery survive that onslaught can be quite important.
For AA you can go with both light, medium and heavy in formations. I generally put some light AA in all formations medium in support and then heavy in rear formations if I have heavy AA researched. light AA will give some defensive capability to support formations if they are attacked and soak some damage and they protect to some degree against air attacks. If there are no enemy air you can always move most of the AA to the front-line units after a while... I tend to do that with medium AA as well but rarely with heavy AA as they are to expensive to risk at the front unless I'm outmatched and need every gun I have on the front line.
I have a typical mobile infantry brigade that is 30.000t in size which have 15 HAA, 30MAA, 45LAA in total. I probably could have run with more LAA guns and often do, but this formation was restricted to be carried in a 30.000t fast response assault ship for rapid and light deployment. This is not a heavy assault formation but more of a rapid response force for defending colonies that is being attacked as quickly as possible. So, it is mainly infantry and light vehicles.
This particular formation is a Brigade with the HQ holding 15 HAA. It has three combat battalions, one cavalry company and three fire support companies. Every formation have 5 LAA each and the fire support companies 10 MAA each.
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: July 02, 2020, 05:42:33 AM »But you know what are the absolutely most likely weapon to hit them is, other medium or long range medium artillery as those are the most common type of artillery. When you fight losses to artillery is like almost 90% from counter bombardment.
In this particular case I might consider resilience versus space efficiency more important. We know that the weapons that is most likely to strike them have AP15,D40 profile so the medium chassis have a 14% chance to blow up and the heavy 6% chance to blow up. I think that reducing the chance to be killed from counter bombardment to less than half is worth the 15% increase in size for MBL and most likely also MB at 18%. Even if you fire less shells from the start that will soon change after a few days of fighting.
I would likely upgrade the armour as well to heavy as I don't think cost is much of a concern at this stage anyway... but not entirely necessary as cost can still be an issue at some point.
In a quick test how this work I had three regiments of infantry supported by three regiments of artillery.
Side A start with 100 MBL medium chassis artillery in each regiment and Side B start with 85 MBL heavy chassis (medium armour). So a total of 300 on side A and 255 on side B.
After 5 days of fighting...
Side A have 180 artillery left
Side B have 215 artillery left
Survival ability is important too, especially for artillery in terms of being constricted by space. I'm not saying it have to be in every case as it depends on the enemies capabilities as well of course.
So long-range mobile artillery with heavy armor would be the best arty in your opinion?
What about anti-air? For me it would have to be heavy AA since I want to to cover other formations. Or maybe its better for every formation to have its own native AA ability.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: July 02, 2020, 05:11:49 AM »But you know what are the absolutely most likely weapon to hit them is, other medium or long range medium artillery as those are the most common type of artillery. When you fight losses to artillery is like almost 90% from counter bombardment.
In this particular case I might consider resilience versus space efficiency more important. We know that the weapons that is most likely to strike them have AP15,D40 profile so the medium chassis have a 14% chance to blow up and the heavy 6% chance to blow up. I think that reducing the chance to be killed from counter bombardment to less than half is worth the 15% increase in size for MBL and most likely also MB at 18%. Even if you fire less shells from the start that will soon change after a few days of fighting.
I would likely upgrade the armour as well to heavy as I don't think cost is much of a concern at this stage anyway... but not entirely necessary as cost can still be an issue at some point.
In a quick test how this work I had three regiments of infantry supported by three regiments of artillery.
Side A start with 100 MBL medium chassis artillery in each regiment and Side B start with 85 MBL heavy chassis (medium armour). So a total of 300 on side A and 255 on side B.
After 5 days of fighting...
Side A have 180 artillery left
Side B have 215 artillery left
Survival ability is important too, especially for artillery in terms of being constricted by space. I'm not saying it have to be in every case as it depends on the enemies capabilities as well of course.
In this particular case I might consider resilience versus space efficiency more important. We know that the weapons that is most likely to strike them have AP15,D40 profile so the medium chassis have a 14% chance to blow up and the heavy 6% chance to blow up. I think that reducing the chance to be killed from counter bombardment to less than half is worth the 15% increase in size for MBL and most likely also MB at 18%. Even if you fire less shells from the start that will soon change after a few days of fighting.
I would likely upgrade the armour as well to heavy as I don't think cost is much of a concern at this stage anyway... but not entirely necessary as cost can still be an issue at some point.
In a quick test how this work I had three regiments of infantry supported by three regiments of artillery.
Side A start with 100 MBL medium chassis artillery in each regiment and Side B start with 85 MBL heavy chassis (medium armour). So a total of 300 on side A and 255 on side B.
After 5 days of fighting...
Side A have 180 artillery left
Side B have 215 artillery left
Survival ability is important too, especially for artillery in terms of being constricted by space. I'm not saying it have to be in every case as it depends on the enemies capabilities as well of course.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: July 01, 2020, 08:36:21 PM »Two medium bombardment artillery in one medium chassi might be a bit of a gamble... I might actually take the slight hit to size and put it into a heavy chassi with medium armour and reduce the kill from a hit due to counter bombardment from a medium artillery piece from 14% to 6%. Losses from counter bombardment to artillery are usually quite substantial. If cost is not concern then just pick heavy armour too.You can do that, but then you're spending more tonnage than if you'd gone for a pair of static artillery. I doubt I'd go heavy for the hit points, considering that bombardment weapons have very high damage values, If you're going to shell out for the heavy armor then it makes more sense.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: July 01, 2020, 07:35:46 PM »Medium vehicles with dual bombardment weapons have slightly lower tonnage per gun than statics.
For a tonnage-bloated defensive force, the inflated cost from having at least armor 2x more is more than enough to disincentivize that build, and the inferior fortification stat hurts too. And the fact that two guns can die in one hit might be a problem depending on what types of weapon will be hitting.
For an invasion force, on the other hand, medium vehicles with medium armor are probably a very reasonable platform for your artillery.
Two medium bombardment artillery in one medium chassi might be a bit of a gamble... I might actually take the slight hit to size and put it into a heavy chassi with medium armour and reduce the kill from a hit due to counter bombardment from a medium artillery piece from 14% to 6%. Losses from counter bombardment to artillery are usually quite substantial. If cost is not concern then just pick heavy armour too.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: July 01, 2020, 07:21:29 PM »Medium vehicles with dual bombardment weapons have slightly lower tonnage per gun than statics.
For a tonnage-bloated defensive force, the inflated cost from having at least armor 2x more is more than enough to disincentivize that build, and the inferior fortification stat hurts too. And the fact that two guns can die in one hit might be a problem depending on what types of weapon will be hitting.
For an invasion force, on the other hand, medium vehicles with medium armor are probably a very reasonable platform for your artillery.
For a tonnage-bloated defensive force, the inflated cost from having at least armor 2x more is more than enough to disincentivize that build, and the inferior fortification stat hurts too. And the fact that two guns can die in one hit might be a problem depending on what types of weapon will be hitting.
For an invasion force, on the other hand, medium vehicles with medium armor are probably a very reasonable platform for your artillery.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: July 01, 2020, 05:18:06 PM »Is there any reason to have non-static support weapons like artillery or anti-air? It seems the best way to get the most bang for your buck is to put large static AA and arty into their own support unit.
Also, where is the evasion stat? I can't seem to find it when making units. Does it increase with new engine tech?
The evasion stat is called "Hit Mod".
The reason to put artillery into heavier vehicles is mainly for assaulting armies as that makes them less susceptible to counter battery fire. Other than this there is very little reason as having more is pretty almost always better. So... stick them in light armoured static units... you get three artillery shells down the line instead of one in a heavy static unit. Front loading damage also means less damage done to you in return.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: July 01, 2020, 05:12:42 PM »
I'd say that if you're not worried about portability and will be fortified, static heavy weapon positions will tend to be better than vehicles. (The anti-vehicle static units in Jorgen_CAB's last experiment didn't do great, but I think they were heavily overmatched and short on top-end weapons suitable for hitting the bigger attack vehicles.)
In my defence here the test was not directly designed to make it optimal for the defender to take out the attacker. When I reversed the medium and heavy emplacement numbers and put all medium and heavy emplacement in rear echelon for about 10 days before moving them to defensive line they were so effective that they actually could defeat the Stormtrooper army and even stop the AT-AT. This was when I was using regular infantry with (PW, LA).
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: July 01, 2020, 05:07:23 PM »Is there any reason to have non-static support weapons like artillery or anti-air? It seems the best way to get the most bang for your buck is to put large static AA and arty into their own support unit, which is a shame because I like to RP as having a highly mobile and flexible force where using static guns would be unheard of.
Also, where is the evasion stat? I can't seem to find it when making units. Does it increase with new engine tech?
Also, where is the evasion stat? I can't seem to find it when making units. Does it increase with new engine tech?
