Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread: C# Edition

[nuclearslurpee]

Ground combat: are there any contexts where HAC is a sensible weapon choice?

The case against: HAC has a wildly unbalanced AP/damage profile, with 5x AP and 2x damage. I don't believe there are any targets that achieve a similar distribution. For almost all units except infantry, armor is at most equal to HP. So in the ideal case where you manage to get a target that exactly matches your AP...the HAC will be generating less than half as many wounds as a HAV would do to its inadequate damage. And the HAV weighs less.

The closest thing to a good case for it would have to be found in infantry, since HPA infantry can have armor double their HP. But they still don't have a high armor multiplier, so you've got to be fighting up a steep tech gradient. If the enemy has armor 50% better than your weapons, that makes a good fit for MAC. For there to be any point in going to HAC you need an even higher ratio.

Am I missing something, or is it really only for fighting vastly superior infantry or handicapping yourself for the sake of roleplay?

It is a reasonable choice to "balance" between having full-blown MAV/HAV and lighter automatic weapons. The 5 AP means it has some ability to penetrate armor, but with three shots it will do okay as an anti-infantry or anti-LVH weapon as well. That said, I usually find MAC better for this but that is in part because the NPRs don't use a lot of heavier unit types, the accounting may be different in case of multiple player races.

[Ulzgoroth]

Ground combat: are there any contexts where HAC is a sensible weapon choice?

The case against: HAC has a wildly unbalanced AP/damage profile, with 5x AP and 2x damage. I don't believe there are any targets that achieve a similar distribution. For almost all units except infantry, armor is at most equal to HP. So in the ideal case where you manage to get a target that exactly matches your AP...the HAC will be generating less than half as many wounds as a HAV would do to its inadequate damage. And the HAV weighs less.

The closest thing to a good case for it would have to be found in infantry, since HPA infantry can have armor double their HP. But they still don't have a high armor multiplier, so you've got to be fighting up a steep tech gradient. If the enemy has armor 50% better than your weapons, that makes a good fit for MAC. For there to be any point in going to HAC you need an even higher ratio.

Am I missing something, or is it really only for fighting vastly superior infantry or handicapping yourself for the sake of roleplay?

It is a reasonable choice to "balance" between having full-blown MAV/HAV and lighter automatic weapons. The 5 AP means it has some ability to penetrate armor, but with three shots it will do okay as an anti-infantry or anti-LVH weapon as well. That said, I usually find MAC better for this but that is in part because the NPRs don't use a lot of heavier unit types, the accounting may be different in case of multiple player races.

Thinking more on this, considering the impossiibility of controlling what your units shoot at, the mediocre generalism might go a long way. If the enemy has a big pool of infantry or LVH, you're three times as effective as AV weapons. If they bring armored medium or heavy vehicles you're not good but you're much better than HCAP.

Though... I think only the presence of significant light to medium vehicles (or super inf) actually can favor that, because 1x HCAP and 1x HAV dishes out more 'kills infantry' and more 'kills heavy vehicles' than 2x HAC.

[nuclearslurpee]

Though... I think only the presence of significant light to medium vehicles (or super inf) actually can favor that, because 1x HCAP and 1x HAV dishes out more 'kills infantry' and more 'kills heavy vehicles' than 2x HAC.

It is admittedly a specialized use case, which I think is fine as not every weapon type needs to be equally as commonly used. However, I definitely am someone who builds mechanized infantry formations with armored INF and LVH and I also like to use heavy armor (HVH) so in a multiple player race game I could see HAC being a useful choice.

IMO we need some way to get intelligence on what ground units the other races use, so that we actually have some motivation to design such specialist units. Currently without such information we have no good reason not to build generalist (or terrain-specialized only) units, and by the time we are engaging an enemy in combat to gain such information, well, ground forces take so long to build up that this is simply too late to count as actionable intel.

[Droll]

IMO we need some way to get intelligence on what ground units the other races use, so that we actually have some motivation to design such specialist units. Currently without such information we have no good reason not to build generalist (or terrain-specialized only) units, and by the time we are engaging an enemy in combat to gain such information, well, ground forces take so long to build up that this is simply too late to count as actionable intel.

That's what the ELINT modules are meant for but they operate on an impractical timeline as there is so much other potentially irrelevant intel that they can uncover.

It would be cool if ships with ELINT capability could be ordered to listen in for specific things like ground force tech or space force tech etc. at the cost of not learning much about other aspects of an alien force.

[nuclearslurpee]

IMO we need some way to get intelligence on what ground units the other races use, so that we actually have some motivation to design such specialist units. Currently without such information we have no good reason not to build generalist (or terrain-specialized only) units, and by the time we are engaging an enemy in combat to gain such information, well, ground forces take so long to build up that this is simply too late to count as actionable intel.

That's what the ELINT modules are meant for but they operate on an impractical timeline as there is so much other potentially irrelevant intel that they can uncover.

It would be cool if ships with ELINT capability could be ordered to listen in for specific things like ground force tech or space force tech etc. at the cost of not learning much about other aspects of an alien force.

Does ELINT actually show you what types, kinds, numbers of ground units are present? I didn't think that was part of the information set it could access.

[Droll]

IMO we need some way to get intelligence on what ground units the other races use, so that we actually have some motivation to design such specialist units. Currently without such information we have no good reason not to build generalist (or terrain-specialized only) units, and by the time we are engaging an enemy in combat to gain such information, well, ground forces take so long to build up that this is simply too late to count as actionable intel.

That's what the ELINT modules are meant for but they operate on an impractical timeline as there is so much other potentially irrelevant intel that they can uncover.

It would be cool if ships with ELINT capability could be ordered to listen in for specific things like ground force tech or space force tech etc. at the cost of not learning much about other aspects of an alien force.

Does ELINT actually show you what types, kinds, numbers of ground units are present? I didn't think that was part of the information set it could access.

I think it can uncover the GU armor and weapon levels. Pretty sure it wont give you the numbers and disposition of a specific force though.

[Garfunkel]

Sry for not looking at every potential cause of unexpected behaviour.

You do not have to look at every potential cause. There is one thread in which Steve explains the known issues which cover the vast majority of problems players have and it is linked from the installation thread which you had to look at when downloading the game. It's okay to ask stupid questions, that's what this thread is all about, no need to get all passive aggressive about it especially when the problem was caused by yourself and that problem sounded exactly like the decimal separation issue that crops up quite often.

[captainwolfer]

Are missile series still in the game? I didn't see a button for them?

[nuclearslurpee]

Are missile series still in the game? I didn't see a button for them?

No. Sadly.

[captainwolfer]

New question: Does multiple warheads on a missile work with ground bombardment? If I understand the rules correctly, multiple smaller warheads will deal less collateral damage to infrastructure than 1 large warhead because each warhead will have less overkill when it hits a civilian building

[nuclearslurpee]

New question: Does multiple warheads on a missile work with ground bombardment? If I understand the rules correctly, multiple smaller warheads will deal less collateral damage to infrastructure than 1 large warhead because each warhead will have less overkill when it hits a civilian building

Per Steve 2.2.0 Dev Post:

The chance to hit for the missile is calculated normally and then applied to a separate attack from each warhead.

The multiple attacks will all be applied against the same target, which could be a ship, population or individual missile.

Emphasis mine. This seems to suggest that multiple warheads on a missile will work with ground bombardment as long as each warhead is at least strength-1 (otherwise the fractional damage would be ignored, I presume).

[Ulzgoroth]

New question: Does multiple warheads on a missile work with ground bombardment? If I understand the rules correctly, multiple smaller warheads will deal less collateral damage to infrastructure than 1 large warhead because each warhead will have less overkill when it hits a civilian building

Per Steve 2.2.0 Dev Post:

The chance to hit for the missile is calculated normally and then applied to a separate attack from each warhead.

The multiple attacks will all be applied against the same target, which could be a ship, population or individual missile.

Emphasis mine. This seems to suggest that multiple warheads on a missile will work with ground bombardment as long as each warhead is at least strength-1 (otherwise the fractional damage would be ignored, I presume).

Fractional warheads should work against ground forces, see here. Though it's possible that <1 strength causes them to have no effect?

[captainwolfer]

How long do missile-based sensor buoys last? (I mean ones with no engines)

[nuclearslurpee]

How long do missile-based sensor buoys last? (I mean ones with no engines)

Heat death of the universe.

[mtm84]

How long do missile-based sensor buoys last? (I mean ones with no engines)

Untill Steve releases an incompatible DB change.