Posted by: misanthropope
« on: May 08, 2020, 04:52:40 PM »again, none of the simulations presented has demonstrated an edge to be gained that would suffice against an opponent even 10% stronger than you.
Posted by: Caplin
« on: May 08, 2020, 04:28:26 PM »Just a thought…
I remember Steve suggesting that the actual casualty figures for boarding actions, at least, not sure about other close combat, were often estimates based on what your units thought they had killed. Might this kind of fudging also be at play here?
I remember Steve suggesting that the actual casualty figures for boarding actions, at least, not sure about other close combat, were often estimates based on what your units thought they had killed. Might this kind of fudging also be at play here?
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: May 08, 2020, 03:41:08 PM »I might not thing it is a huge problem but I do think it is a problem that you can META game the system like that... larger formations also is much easier to micromanage on top of everything else and retain good commanding bonuses better.
No, it's not a problem that you can game the system; it is only a problem if you must.
Not necessarily no, but in this instance i think there can be a better solution because you can by mistake game the system if you don't understand how the relationship work and then people complain about balance and why they loose even if they have a larger better army for example.
The data above suggests you can't game the system over an NPR, but rather only handicap yourself for the sake of roleplay. The 'big battalions' have a decided advantage over the individual squads. . . at least until you get down to the point of overkilling the squads by twenty or thirty times.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: May 08, 2020, 03:08:20 PM »I might not thing it is a huge problem but I do think it is a problem that you can META game the system like that... larger formations also is much easier to micromanage on top of everything else and retain good commanding bonuses better.
No, it's not a problem that you can game the system; it is only a problem if you must.
Not necessarily no, but in this instance i think there can be a better solution because you can by mistake game the system if you don't understand how the relationship work and then people complain about balance and why they loose even if they have a larger better army for example.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: May 08, 2020, 10:23:32 AM »No problem at all, always good to test these things properly. I was thinking of doing another test but you did it for me which is great because I can go back to writing my AAR instead 
As others said, this is only a problem if NPRs and spoilers make few huge formations AND the player has built many small formations. Even in that situation, force composition and technology differences, not to mention commander bonuses and supply issues, will probably have a lot more impact.
In player-vs-player battle, there is no problem at all because either one player micromanages ground units to the level of detail they want OR if it's an MP situation then they agree on a rough house rule or something like that.
I always say that you have to know the rules well so that you can bend/break them properly
As others said, this is only a problem if NPRs and spoilers make few huge formations AND the player has built many small formations. Even in that situation, force composition and technology differences, not to mention commander bonuses and supply issues, will probably have a lot more impact.
In player-vs-player battle, there is no problem at all because either one player micromanages ground units to the level of detail they want OR if it's an MP situation then they agree on a rough house rule or something like that.
I always say that you have to know the rules well so that you can bend/break them properly
Posted by: misanthropope
« on: May 08, 2020, 09:38:19 AM »sorry if i've hijacked your thread, Garfunkel. To attempt to merge back into your original inquiry, I am going to throw out the opinion that the real issue isn't that size games confer a large advantage, but that combat is deterministic and snowball-y enough that small advantages produce lopsided victory.. unfortunately that's a much harder problem to solve, even if steve regarded it as worth effort, which is doubtful. combat by quadriture isn't so common because it's good, it's so common because you've got to put real effort into avoiding it.
FWIW it's improved over vb6, which was more deterministic, more snowbally *and* casualties were cheaper to replace for the victor.
edit: the determinism is not actually a given. it's easy to magic up 15000 tanks but it might be that campaign-buildable armies exhibit meaningful variation. without just being able to stuff the ground combat inside a do loop it's a pretty grindy process to test it.
FWIW it's improved over vb6, which was more deterministic, more snowbally *and* casualties were cheaper to replace for the victor.
edit: the determinism is not actually a given. it's easy to magic up 15000 tanks but it might be that campaign-buildable armies exhibit meaningful variation. without just being able to stuff the ground combat inside a do loop it's a pretty grindy process to test it.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: May 08, 2020, 09:34:29 AM »I might not thing it is a huge problem but I do think it is a problem that you can META game the system like that... larger formations also is much easier to micromanage on top of everything else and retain good commanding bonuses better.
No, it's not a problem that you can game the system; it is only a problem if you must.
Posted by: skoormit
« on: May 08, 2020, 09:33:02 AM »15 vs 14 using 1k formations, The winners Had 5,137 surviving MBT, about 400 less then in the previous battle.
Which is very much in line with the pythagorean expectation of 5,385.
Posted by: Gyrfalcon
« on: May 08, 2020, 08:57:59 AM »15 vs 14 using 1k formations, The winners Had 5,137 surviving MBT, about 400 less then in the previous battle.
Posted by: misanthropope
« on: May 08, 2020, 08:23:11 AM »gyrfalcon
the larger formations are better, to be sure, but don't be misled by the quantity of surviving units on the winning side. that was a fairly close battle. the baseline for eyeballing such things is the pythagorean theorem (and this isn't nearly as SWAGgy as I'm making it sound; the derivation borders on being interesting if you're a math nerd). 500 vs 400 if individual rounds of combat aren't highly lethal you expect the bigger side to walk away with 300 units.
on the "eyeball metric" basis, the 5*formation size advantage is only about 8%. i don't have A# up and running yet, but i reckon if you ran 15 v 14 of your size 1000 formations you'd see the larger side keep about the same number of surviving tanks as in the sim you ran.
i guess the tl;dr is this: even major size advantages only equate to minor material advantage. if steve tweaks the commander bonus stacking just a little bit (to increase the value of having a deeper hierarchy) a "golden mean" will appear.
the larger formations are better, to be sure, but don't be misled by the quantity of surviving units on the winning side. that was a fairly close battle. the baseline for eyeballing such things is the pythagorean theorem (and this isn't nearly as SWAGgy as I'm making it sound; the derivation borders on being interesting if you're a math nerd). 500 vs 400 if individual rounds of combat aren't highly lethal you expect the bigger side to walk away with 300 units.
on the "eyeball metric" basis, the 5*formation size advantage is only about 8%. i don't have A# up and running yet, but i reckon if you ran 15 v 14 of your size 1000 formations you'd see the larger side keep about the same number of surviving tanks as in the sim you ran.
i guess the tl;dr is this: even major size advantages only equate to minor material advantage. if steve tweaks the commander bonus stacking just a little bit (to increase the value of having a deeper hierarchy) a "golden mean" will appear.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: May 08, 2020, 07:51:38 AM »I have done some testing and it works in the way that the smaller formation side need to do more than double the damage of their small formations, then it is beneficial.
In this case it would probably swing the other way if you have 133 size 75 units as the large formation could only ever do 150 damage on you while the smaller force would still do about 175 damage in return. The larger side will then loose more morale than it gain (i think) so it would go downhill from there.
In general larger units is better by far unless the opponent use really tiny formations.
I might not thing it is a huge problem but I do think it is a problem that you can META game the system like that... larger formations also is much easier to micromanage on top of everything else and retain good commanding bonuses better.
In this case it would probably swing the other way if you have 133 size 75 units as the large formation could only ever do 150 damage on you while the smaller force would still do about 175 damage in return. The larger side will then loose more morale than it gain (i think) so it would go downhill from there.
In general larger units is better by far unless the opponent use really tiny formations.
I might not thing it is a huge problem but I do think it is a problem that you can META game the system like that... larger formations also is much easier to micromanage on top of everything else and retain good commanding bonuses better.
Posted by: Gyrfalcon
« on: May 08, 2020, 07:46:10 AM »I set up a battle between two conventional empires. One used 15 formations of 1,000 medium vehicles with support vehicles and HQ attached, and the other used 3 formations of 5,000 medium vehicles with equal numbers of support vehicles and HQ attached.
Round 1
OPFOR BLUE
8 of 15 units acheive breakthrough
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 3893x MBT, 41x LLU, 6x HQ
Casualties Taken: 5418x MBT, 102x LLU, 11x HQ
OPFOR RED
5 of 3 units achieved breakthrough (1st 2x, 2nd 1x, 3rd 2x)
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 6883x MBT, 102x LLU, 23x HQ
Casualties Taken: 3893x MBT, 41x LLU, 6x HQ
Round Summary:
OPFOR BLUE has 9 formations intact, 1 formations shattered (1 HQ unit still present, formation at 13% strength), and 5 formations destroyed. Survivors merged into shattered formation.
OPFOR RED has 3 damaged formations at 76%, 80% and 66% strength.
OPFOR BLUE took 1,525x MBT, 61x LLU and 5x HQ more casualties in combat.
Round 2
OPFOR BLUE
8 of 10 units achieve breakthrough
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 3928x MBT, 40x LLU, 4x HQ
Casualties Taken: 3631x MBT, 55x LLU, 6x HQ
OPFOR RED
4 of 3 units achieve breakthrough (1st 2x, 2nd 1x, 3rd 1x)
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 3916x MBT, 55x LLU, 7x HQ
Casualties Taken: 2928x MBT, 40x LLU, 4x HQ
Round Summary:
OPFOR BLUE has 4 formations intact, 1 formation at 52%, 1 formation at 58%, 1 formation at 38%, and 3 formations destroyed. Survivors merged into the remaining units.
OPFOR RED has 3 damaged formations at 42%, 62% and 59% strength.
OPFOR BLUE took 703x MBT, 15x LLU and 2x HQ more casualties in combat.
Round 3
OPFOR BLUE
5* of 7 units achieved breakthrough (2 units achieved breakthrough twice) - total breakthroughs: 7
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 1863x MBT, 14x LLU, 5x HQ
Casualties Taken: 2867x MBT, 32x LLU, 5x HQ
OPFOR RED
5 of 3 units achieve breakthrough (1st 2x, 2nd 2x, 3rd 1x)
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 3867x MBT, 32x LLU, 5x HQ
Casualties Taken: 1863x MBT, 14x LLU, 5x HQ
Round Summary:
OPFOR BLUE has no intact formations, 3 formations above 50%, 2 formations between 34-47%, one formation at 14x, and 1 destroyed formation. Survivors merged into the remaining units.
-- After merging, OPFOR BLUE has 4 formations at 84%, 40%, 100% and 84% strength remaining.
OPFOR RED has 3 damaged formations at 30%, 55%, and 41% strength.
OPFOR BLUE took 1004x MBT and 18x LLU more casualties in combat.
Round 4
OPFOR BLUE
No breakthroughs were achieved.
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 352x MBT, 4x LLU, 1x HQ
Casualties Taken: 1362x MBT, 51x LLU, 2x HQ
OPFOR RED
2 of 3 units achieved breakthroughs
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 1362x MBT, 51x LLU, 3x HQ
Casualties Taken: 352x MBT, 4x LLU, 1x HQ
Round Summary:
OPFOR BLUE has 3 intact formations at 26%, 40% and 84% strength and 1 destroyed formation.
-- After merging, OPFOR BLUE has 3 formations at 48%, 40% and 84% strength.
OPFOR RED has 3 formations at 27%, 55% and 36%
OPFOR BLUE took 1010x MBT, 47x LLU and 1x HQ more casualties in combat.
Round 5
OPFOR BLUE
No breakthroughs were achieved
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 174x MBT
Casualties Taken: 711x MBT, 36x LLU, 5x HQ
OPFOR RED
2 of 3 units achieved breakthroughs
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 979x MBT, 36x LLU, 8x HQ
Casualties Taken: 174x MBT
Round Summary:
OPFOR BLUE has 1 intact formation at 71% strength and 2 destroyed formations. After merger, the 9th is the only surviving formation at 101% strength.
OPFOR RED has 3 intact formations at 26%, 55% and 35% strength.
OPFOR BLUE took 805x MBT, 36x LLU and 8x HQ more casualties in combat.
Round 6 (Final Round)
OPFOR BLUE
No breakthroughs were achieved
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 110x MBT, 1x LLU
Casualties Taken: 707x MBT, 13x LLU, 1x HQ
OPFOR RED
3 of 3 units achieved breakthroughs
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 707x MBT, 13x LLU, 1x HQ
Casualties Taken: 110x MBT, 1x LLU
Round Summary:
OPFOR BLUE's 9th has shattered, with no remaining HQ units.
OPFOR RED has 3 intact formations at 26%, 55% and 32% strength.
OPFOR BLUE took 597x MBT, 12x LLU and 1x HQ more casualties in combat.
My analysis is that all things being equal, its far better to bring fewer, larger formations to combat then more small formations. Throughout the rounds, OPFOR BLUE consistently took far worse casualties, despite both sides having exactly equal numbers for types and quality of units.
Of course for play against player factions, you can simulate battles down to the company level, but if you are mostly looking to fight the AI and it brings larger formations to the table, mechanically speaking you have to do the same or suffer disproportionate casualties, even in standup fights.
Code: [Select]
1,000 Tank Unit
Transport Size: 64.600 tons
Build Cost: 5.216 BP
1000x MBT (M/M/MAV/CAP)
40x Local Logistic Unit (I/LI/LOG-NCC)
2x HQ (MV/MVA/HQ-65k/MAV-NCC)
5,000 Tank Unit
Transport Size: 323.000 tons
Build Cost: 30.640 BP
5000x MBT (M/M/MAV/CAP)
200x Local Logistic Unit
10x HQ (MV/MVA/HQ-350k/MAV-NCC)
Both sides have the same starting forces:
15.000x MBT (M/M/MAV/CAP)
600x Local Logistic Unit
30x HQ (MV/MVA/HQ-xk/MAV-NCC)
Round 1
OPFOR BLUE
8 of 15 units acheive breakthrough
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 3893x MBT, 41x LLU, 6x HQ
Casualties Taken: 5418x MBT, 102x LLU, 11x HQ
OPFOR RED
5 of 3 units achieved breakthrough (1st 2x, 2nd 1x, 3rd 2x)
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 6883x MBT, 102x LLU, 23x HQ
Casualties Taken: 3893x MBT, 41x LLU, 6x HQ
Round Summary:
OPFOR BLUE has 9 formations intact, 1 formations shattered (1 HQ unit still present, formation at 13% strength), and 5 formations destroyed. Survivors merged into shattered formation.
OPFOR RED has 3 damaged formations at 76%, 80% and 66% strength.
OPFOR BLUE took 1,525x MBT, 61x LLU and 5x HQ more casualties in combat.
Round 2
OPFOR BLUE
8 of 10 units achieve breakthrough
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 3928x MBT, 40x LLU, 4x HQ
Casualties Taken: 3631x MBT, 55x LLU, 6x HQ
OPFOR RED
4 of 3 units achieve breakthrough (1st 2x, 2nd 1x, 3rd 1x)
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 3916x MBT, 55x LLU, 7x HQ
Casualties Taken: 2928x MBT, 40x LLU, 4x HQ
Round Summary:
OPFOR BLUE has 4 formations intact, 1 formation at 52%, 1 formation at 58%, 1 formation at 38%, and 3 formations destroyed. Survivors merged into the remaining units.
OPFOR RED has 3 damaged formations at 42%, 62% and 59% strength.
OPFOR BLUE took 703x MBT, 15x LLU and 2x HQ more casualties in combat.
Round 3
OPFOR BLUE
5* of 7 units achieved breakthrough (2 units achieved breakthrough twice) - total breakthroughs: 7
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 1863x MBT, 14x LLU, 5x HQ
Casualties Taken: 2867x MBT, 32x LLU, 5x HQ
OPFOR RED
5 of 3 units achieve breakthrough (1st 2x, 2nd 2x, 3rd 1x)
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 3867x MBT, 32x LLU, 5x HQ
Casualties Taken: 1863x MBT, 14x LLU, 5x HQ
Round Summary:
OPFOR BLUE has no intact formations, 3 formations above 50%, 2 formations between 34-47%, one formation at 14x, and 1 destroyed formation. Survivors merged into the remaining units.
-- After merging, OPFOR BLUE has 4 formations at 84%, 40%, 100% and 84% strength remaining.
OPFOR RED has 3 damaged formations at 30%, 55%, and 41% strength.
OPFOR BLUE took 1004x MBT and 18x LLU more casualties in combat.
Round 4
OPFOR BLUE
No breakthroughs were achieved.
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 352x MBT, 4x LLU, 1x HQ
Casualties Taken: 1362x MBT, 51x LLU, 2x HQ
OPFOR RED
2 of 3 units achieved breakthroughs
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 1362x MBT, 51x LLU, 3x HQ
Casualties Taken: 352x MBT, 4x LLU, 1x HQ
Round Summary:
OPFOR BLUE has 3 intact formations at 26%, 40% and 84% strength and 1 destroyed formation.
-- After merging, OPFOR BLUE has 3 formations at 48%, 40% and 84% strength.
OPFOR RED has 3 formations at 27%, 55% and 36%
OPFOR BLUE took 1010x MBT, 47x LLU and 1x HQ more casualties in combat.
Round 5
OPFOR BLUE
No breakthroughs were achieved
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 174x MBT
Casualties Taken: 711x MBT, 36x LLU, 5x HQ
OPFOR RED
2 of 3 units achieved breakthroughs
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 979x MBT, 36x LLU, 8x HQ
Casualties Taken: 174x MBT
Round Summary:
OPFOR BLUE has 1 intact formation at 71% strength and 2 destroyed formations. After merger, the 9th is the only surviving formation at 101% strength.
OPFOR RED has 3 intact formations at 26%, 55% and 35% strength.
OPFOR BLUE took 805x MBT, 36x LLU and 8x HQ more casualties in combat.
Round 6 (Final Round)
OPFOR BLUE
No breakthroughs were achieved
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 110x MBT, 1x LLU
Casualties Taken: 707x MBT, 13x LLU, 1x HQ
OPFOR RED
3 of 3 units achieved breakthroughs
Casualties Believed Inflicted: 707x MBT, 13x LLU, 1x HQ
Casualties Taken: 110x MBT, 1x LLU
Round Summary:
OPFOR BLUE's 9th has shattered, with no remaining HQ units.
OPFOR RED has 3 intact formations at 26%, 55% and 32% strength.
OPFOR BLUE took 597x MBT, 12x LLU and 1x HQ more casualties in combat.
My analysis is that all things being equal, its far better to bring fewer, larger formations to combat then more small formations. Throughout the rounds, OPFOR BLUE consistently took far worse casualties, despite both sides having exactly equal numbers for types and quality of units.
Of course for play against player factions, you can simulate battles down to the company level, but if you are mostly looking to fight the AI and it brings larger formations to the table, mechanically speaking you have to do the same or suffer disproportionate casualties, even in standup fights.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: May 08, 2020, 07:31:39 AM »A test of 10,000 vs 1 might swing the other way, depending on how far the breakthrough mechanic stacks. If I'm remebering correctly a unit can only double-breakthough at most, so the '10,000' would overkill three of the '1' per combat round.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: May 08, 2020, 07:13:04 AM »Ah yes, that makes sense. Also, this means that it is possible to waste shots to some extent if fighting small enough formations.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: May 08, 2020, 06:07:33 AM »I also don't know why there was always such a discrepancy between what Blue thought they had killed and what Red reported lost.
Yes, as Misanthropope says it's almost certainly that Blue was inflicting "121" kills on a formation of only 100 units.
