Author Topic: C# Ground Forces Composition  (Read 1053 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 238
  • Thanked: 51 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #45 on: September 23, 2018, 07:32:01 AM »
I agree that the HCAP is probably is a little powerful in relation to other similar cost weapons. I'll reduce the base AP from 2 to 1.6.
Does that correspond to a decrease of power armor armor ratings as well, or is only HCAP that is adjusted? Heavy power armor seems pretty unopposed without any weapon that can reliably pierce its armor and not inflict massive overkill.
Generally power armor having superior armor to light vehicles seems a bit off, especially with the no overhead on their unit size.
 

Online Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7023
  • Thanked: 1857 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #46 on: September 23, 2018, 11:10:48 AM »
I agree that the HCAP is probably is a little powerful in relation to other similar cost weapons. I'll reduce the base AP from 2 to 1.6.
Does that correspond to a decrease of power armor armor ratings as well, or is only HCAP that is adjusted? Heavy power armor seems pretty unopposed without any weapon that can reliably pierce its armor and not inflict massive overkill.
Generally power armor having superior armor to light vehicles seems a bit off, especially with the no overhead on their unit size.

Yes, I'll reduce powered armour to 1.5 and heavy powered to 2, which is in line with light vehicle armour. As I play test I may well adjust a few other ratings.

When I created the infantry powered armour, there was no light vehicle, so it was below a vehicle. I would still like the idea of a 'space marine' style infantry, but it needs to be reasonable vs other unit types.
 

Online Jorgen_CAB

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 754
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #47 on: September 23, 2018, 12:34:16 PM »
I would like to see three levels of infantry personal weapons as well if possible. I also think that 20% reduction in cost of light personal weapons is not in line with AP 5 since most things will have at least Armour 10 and that weapon only penetrate light armour with 1 in 4 shots. Perhaps raise the AP to 9 since that correspond well with a 20% decrease in penetration against armour 10 or reduce size to 3 and make AP 8.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commander
  • *********
  • B
  • Posts: 387
  • Thanked: 22 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #48 on: September 23, 2018, 12:43:21 PM »
I would like to see three levels of infantry personal weapons as well if possible. I also think that 20% reduction in cost of light personal weapons is not in line with AP 5 since most things will have at least Armour 10 and that weapon only penetrate light armour with 1 in 4 shots. Perhaps raise the AP to 9 since that correspond well with a 20% decrease in penetration against armour 10 or reduce size to 3 and make AP 8.

Light personal weapons seem mostly useful if going after conventional tech races, or if you want lots of cheap infantry to absorb damage (possibly while your artillery hammers the enemy), and they work fine in those scenarios. I think the changes you're suggesting would make them considerably overpowered, especially with a tech advantage.

Weapon balance isn't as simple as "a weapon that weighs twice as much should be twice as effective" since a smaller weapon means you have more units; 25% more in the case of PWL infantry. This means that light personal weapons aren't just "do 75% less damage against equivalent tech enemies", they're "do 68.75% less damage to equal tech enemies, 25% more to very low tech enemies, and have 25% more health". Which I think is decent as a niche weapon.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2018, 12:53:15 PM by Bremen »
 

Online Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 238
  • Thanked: 51 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #49 on: September 23, 2018, 01:54:09 PM »
I would like to see three levels of infantry personal weapons as well if possible. I also think that 20% reduction in cost of light personal weapons is not in line with AP 5 since most things will have at least Armour 10 and that weapon only penetrate light armour with 1 in 4 shots. Perhaps raise the AP to 9 since that correspond well with a 20% decrease in penetration against armour 10 or reduce size to 3 and make AP 8.

Light personal weapons seem mostly useful if going after conventional tech races, or if you want lots of cheap infantry to absorb damage (possibly while your artillery hammers the enemy), and they work fine in those scenarios. I think the changes you're suggesting would make them considerably overpowered, especially with a tech advantage.

Weapon balance isn't as simple as "a weapon that weighs twice as much should be twice as effective" since a smaller weapon means you have more units; 25% more in the case of PWL infantry. This means that light personal weapons aren't just "do 75% less damage against equivalent tech enemies", they're "do 68.75% less damage to equal tech enemies, 25% more to very low tech enemies, and have 25% more health". Which I think is decent as a niche weapon.
I started some simulations, throwing together random army compositions, and PWL seems to do quite well as damage sponge. Against vehicles the difference between PW and PWL is tiny anyway, and CAP and HCAP deal most of the anti infantry damage.
The simulations are not exhaustive, but one clear tendency is that you absolutely want some infantry of some kind as damage sponge in your army. Unarmored if you can afford the space, armored if you are sensitive to transport requirements.
 

Online Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7023
  • Thanked: 1857 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #50 on: September 23, 2018, 02:20:03 PM »
Earlier today, as part of the infantry changes, I made PWL 0.5 AP, 0.5 damage and Size 3. I wanted more differentiation between PWL and PW.

This differences makes PWL-equipped infantry a serious choice for occupation forces (due to occupation strength vs cost), and for use as Militia serving as a damage sponge. However, they are significantly less effective offensively vs front-line infantry formations.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commander
  • *********
  • B
  • Posts: 387
  • Thanked: 22 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #51 on: September 23, 2018, 03:58:51 PM »
This differences makes PWL-equipped infantry a serious choice for occupation forces (due to occupation strength vs cost), and for use as Militia serving as a damage sponge. However, they are significantly less effective offensively vs front-line infantry formations.

That actually does surprisingly well against infantry (assuming either the same armor, or that they're matched based on cost instead of size). I mean, they do 1/4 the damage against anything with better than (Tech level modified) 5 armor, but there's also nearly twice as many.

Let's say there's 200 militia vs 120 infantry. Abstract away fortification and accuracy to be 50% of shots hit.

200 militia fire 200 shots, 100 hit, and 25 kill. 120 infantry fire, 60 hit, 60 kill. That leaves 140 militia vs 95 infantry, which becomes  98 vs 78, then 59 vs 66, 26 vs 52, and ends with 49 infantry left. The infantry won, sure, but militia nearly held their own, and are much better for absorbing damage and gain more for a tech advantage.

Not a completely unbalanced change, but I could see militia becoming quite useful with the new numbers.
 

Online Jorgen_CAB

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 754
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #52 on: September 23, 2018, 04:15:20 PM »
This differences makes PWL-equipped infantry a serious choice for occupation forces (due to occupation strength vs cost), and for use as Militia serving as a damage sponge. However, they are significantly less effective offensively vs front-line infantry formations.

That actually does surprisingly well against infantry (assuming either the same armor, or that they're matched based on cost instead of size). I mean, they do 1/4 the damage against anything with better than (Tech level modified) 5 armor, but there's also nearly twice as many.

Let's say there's 200 militia vs 120 infantry. Abstract away fortification and accuracy to be 50% of shots hit.

200 militia fire 200 shots, 100 hit, and 25 kill. 120 infantry fire, 60 hit, 60 kill. That leaves 140 militia vs 95 infantry, which becomes  98 vs 78, then 59 vs 66, 26 vs 52, and ends with 49 infantry left. The infantry won, sure, but militia nearly held their own, and are much better for absorbing damage and gain more for a tech advantage.

Not a completely unbalanced change, but I could see militia becoming quite useful with the new numbers.

But the Militia in this instance only do 0.5 damage so a penetrating hit only kills half the time... or is that not how it works?!?

So if you have 200 Militia against 10 Armour, 10 HP infantry you will only kill 12.5 Infantry since the gun only do 5 damage not 10.

The main role for Militia would not be combat oriented for the most part but to garrison some type of planets for a cheap cost. Serious garrisons meant for defence would be using at least normal infantry.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2018, 04:17:32 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Online Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7023
  • Thanked: 1857 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #53 on: September 23, 2018, 04:20:25 PM »
But the Militia in this instance only do 0.5 damage so a penetrating hit only kills half the time... or is that not how it works?!?

Yes, that it is how it works.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commander
  • *********
  • B
  • Posts: 387
  • Thanked: 22 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #54 on: September 23, 2018, 04:35:54 PM »
Opps, missed the damage changed as well. That does seem more balanced.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53