I also did a bunch of math on weapon system efficiency.
A few technical notes before we start.
- Basic assumptions here are that both sides are at equal tech, all vehicles use the heaviest available armour, and we're only looking at shots that actually hit the target - I'm looking at AP vs Armour and Damage vs HP, not to-hit numbers.
- Assumed armour values are based on the screenshots Steve posted, with the heaviest option equipped. Infantry = x1, LV = x2, V = x4, HV = x6, SHV = x9, UHV = x12, Static = x3. Combat rules are pages 7-8 of the C# changes thread, and weapon lists are on page 4 of this thread.
- The equal tech assumption really matters. At equal tech, basic riflemen (PW-equipped infantry) have a 100% chance of killing each other if they hit. If you up the armor tech on the defender from 10 armor and 10 HP to 12 of each, the attacker only has a 48% chance of a kill.
- I don't know of any publicly posted cost info, which means I can't measure cost efficiency. In practice, this will probably matter a lot. UHVs are amazing on a per-ton basis, for example, but I'd wager they'll stink on a per-BP basis.
- When I discuss size efficiency, I'm looking at the smallest system available of each type. That means infantry-based light weapons, and light vehicles carrying every LV-available weapon. For the few weapons that require Vehicles or Super-Heavy Vehicles, I mounted multiples of the system (e. g. , SHAV is judged on the basis of a SHV with three of them equipped). For targets, I assumed that they used the smallest combat weapon mix they could. For infantry, that means PWLs, and for vehicles, that means all their slots filled with CAPs.
- I haven't considered any systems that don't directly deal damage.
vs Infantry:
Literally everything kills infantry except Light Personal Weapons, which have only a 6% chance. Because of multiple shots, the champions at killing them are the crew-served anti-personnel weapons, killing 6 per round. The most space-efficient option for killing them is a CAP, which can kill 150% of their own size each round. Heavy CAP, regular personal weapons, and light bombardment are all reasonable choices as well (90%, 60%, and 45%, respectively). Light AC is 25%, and nothing else is above 20%.
vs Light Vehicles:
LVs are 100% killed by every AV type, heavy bombardment, and medium/heavy AA. Because of multiple shots, medium bombardment and medium/heavy AC average more than 1 kill per round as well. Heavy bombardment is the champ in raw kills, being the only unit to hit 3/round. Most weapon systems have decent space-efficiency here, with everything breaking 20% except PWL, PW, and LAA. Light AV is naturally the best, at 150%, followed by heavy bombardment at 104%, medium bombardment at 78%, MAV at 55%, medium autocannon at 53%, medium AA at 46%, HCAP at 45%. . . it's really all over the map. Even personal weapons are 13%. Basically, everything bigger than a rifleman does decently here, and even riflemen are passable.
vs Vehicles:
The only 100% killers are medium/heavy/superheavy AV. Heavy bombardment, heavy AC, and heavy AA all manage better than half a kill per round as well. On space efficiency, medium AV at 95% is the best, followed by heavy AV at 74%, heavy bombardment at 46%, heavy AC at 39%, light AV at 37%, SHAV at 36%, MB and MAA at 34%, and medium AC at 30%. Light weapons really start to fall off in effectiveness here - PW are 3%, and CAP/LAC/LB are all below 10%.
vs Heavy Vehicles:
Only HAV/SHAV get 100% kill rates here. Nothing else manages more than a third of a kill per round. On space efficiency, the champ is HAV, of course, killing 105% of its size per round. SHAV is 52%, and HB/MAV/HAA/HAC are in the 17-29% range. Nothing else breaks 10%.
vs Super-Heavy Vehicles:
Nothing gets a guaranteed kill here. SHAV has a 56% chance, HAV has 11%, and nothing else kills more than 4% of a SHV per round. On space efficiency, it's similar - SHAV is 70%, HAV is 28%, and nothing else beats 8%.
vs Ultra-Heavy Vehicles:
Same story here. Even the mighty SHAV only has an 8% chance of getting a kill each round, and 17% space efficiency. HAV is 1. 6% to kill, and 6. 8% space efficiency. Nothing else beats 0. 5% kill chances or 2% space efficiency. UHVs are absolute monsters on the battlefield, and it'll likely only be cost that keeps them from taking over as primary combatants.
vs Static:
We're back to the land where things can be killed - these are halfway between light and regular vehicles. MAV/HAV/SHAV/HAA get guaranteed kills if they hit, and HB/MAC/HAC average better than one kill per round. LAV kills 67% of its size each round, followed by MAV at 55%, MAC at 53%, HB at 46%, HAV at 42%, HAC at 40%, and so on.
Weapon SystemsPersonal Weapons:
Regular personal weapons are solid infantry-killers, tolerable against light vehicles, and very weak against everything else. Light personal weapons are just trash, unless you're attacking someone who's way behind you in tech. PWL-equipped infantry are a damage sponge, not a serious combat unit, in a near-peer war. I expect these to do well on cost-efficiency, but not on any other metric. That said, cost efficiency matters a lot.
Crew-Served Anti-Personnel:
These are the kings of anti-infantry work, and decent against light vehicles(especially the heavy). They can make a showing against static installations and regular vehicles too. I expect to see a lot of these around.
Anti-Vehicle:
Does exactly what it says on the tin. These are the only realistic choices against SHV/UHV behemoths, and by far the most efficient against the more plebeian vehicles and static in. They're not great against infantry though - too big, for too little effect. That said, for a nation with a massive tech disadvantage, a lot of LAV as anti-infantry weapons makes good sense.
Bombardment:
Given that these can be fired from behind the front lines, they're surprisingly good. If LB needs to be at the front it's pretty weak, though (I'm not 100% sure of the rules here). MB and HB rip apart a lot of smaller vehicles very well, and they can even be built with weaker armour if desired, since they're not front-line combatants. MBL will be interesting to see in practice, since it has the extra-long range of HB, the damage of MB, and size halfway between the two. I suspect MBL use will depend more heavily on doctrine than most. These seem like effective garrison units, since they can (presumably) be built fairly cheap and the supply use is easier to accommodate than on the attack, but I'd wager the collateral damage from that will hurt.
Anti-Aircraft:
Obviously these are specialized units, so their raw damage isn't anything special. That said, MAA and HAA are actually fairly decent in the AV role too. It feels a bit WW2 here tbh, like the famous 88s and 5" DP naval guns. If HAA isn't too expensive, I expect to see it as a secondary weapon on some tanks, since it can cover your whole force while still doing decent anti-vehicle work. MAA's rules work against it a bit as a front-line combatant, since it can only cover its own formation or a direct subordinate formation as I understand it, which means you don't want it in the front lines (where it's as limited as LAA for a higher cost). But for support formations, it'll help against breakthroughs, which I expect to typically be tank-led.
Autocannons:
These are a bit jack-of-all-trades. Not superior at anything, but useful across a broad spectrum. That said, they seem balanced pretty low right now - I think they could get a fourth shot and still be balanced. Unless these are fairly cheap (or they get buffed), I can't imagine using them seriously. If they are quite cheap, though, they give a good spectrum of anti-tank effects, with broader utility against a range of classes than the AV guns.
Bombardment Pods:
Steve gave the rules for bombardment fighter pods specifically, and while they're not ground units per se, I did a bit of analysis here as well. For killing infantry, 20-ton(=8 MSP) pods are pretty decent (as good as LB), and 40-70 ton pods are quite effective against LV. Against heavier units, there's a fairly flat performance per ton once your damage exceeds their HP - 40 tons for Static, 50 for V, 70 for HV, 100 for SHV, and 150 tons for UHV. The increased AP thereafter keeps pace with the increased tonnage, more or less. And the stats are fairly good - a 150-ton pod has 3x the chance to kill a UHV that a SHAV does.
Also, because the on-ground tonnage is fairly low, the FFDs are less likely to draw ground fire than an their effective firepower would imply. A 60-ton FFD draws fire like a 60-ton tank, but it can direct the firepower of
3000 tons of fighters. Even with box-launcher fighters for space work, you can very realistically get 500 tons of weapon pods into the fight with a single FFD. The fighters cost more transport space, but a few FFDs are likely not to get hit too badly, and they can direct a hell of a lot of firepower. If the enemy has weak AA, your aerial firepower is going to be quite safe relative to the damage it's doing.
OverallSteve's done a pretty good job here. Units work like you'd expect, nothing is a god weapon, there's definite need for combined arms, and I expect realistic-looking forces to come out. I'll need to see costs before I judge it too definitively, but on paper it really looks good. My only real concerns are SHV/UHV costs (and how well the AI reacts to a player building lots of them, since it seems like the sort of thing a lot of players will do just for fun), and autocannon balance, but those are fairly minor. I
really like this system.
