Posted by: Exultant
« on: May 15, 2020, 09:01:54 PM »First of all, thank you for the reply, and the thought out response!
I am being specific, because this is a discussion strictly about "what gun should I put on my vehicle". Formation compositions to maximize kills and minimize losses are, in themselves, an entirely different discussion because it requires delving into minimizing the damage you take. My argument here is that autocannons are only an RP choice, and have no role where they excel, even "jack of all trades".
Chance to Kill, by itself, is not the most important factor. If the most important thing was chance to kill, the only optimal solution to ground combat would be SHAV weaponry, since it has the highest chance to kill any enemy unit, with the highest penetration and weapons do not have differing chances to hit (just more attempts). You need to maximize the chance to kill per ton, because you transport a specific number of tons, which limits the number of guns you bring. the faster you kill, the less damage you take, and the less total supply you use.
However, you do make a good point about GSP, as GSP does relate to total tonnage you need to transport. I would make the argument that CtK/Ton is a better reflection of the decisions that people make rather than CtK/GSP or even potentially CtK/(ton*GSP), since we are able to keep the vast majority of our logistics outside of the chain of command (transferring elements in as Logistics units are used up) which keeps HQ sizes smaller, which keeps RP costs down for developing the HQs, which also means we have more choices for commanders for our formations.
I did edits to the calculator to compare efficiency as defined as CtK/(ton*GSP), and tweaked the modified ACs to have GSP cost calculated correctly (AP mod*Damage mod*Shots). Note that this did change things slightly. Test LAC has a slightly higher GSP cost, Test MAC has a slightly lower cost, and Test HAC is unaffected. I also added your suggestion of an extra shot with no other modifications to AC penetration and damage. I prefixed these designs with RF for rapid fire. Please access the calculator again and make a new copy if you want to look at the numbers.
The biggest impact of comparing efficiency as CtK/(ton*GSP) seems to be that there's really no difference between the Test ACs vs. regular ACs against infantry, except Test LAC is twice as effective (and above LAV) vs. Infantry Powered Heavy. Using this metric, the RF guns are identical to their normal counterparts, since the extra shot is offset by the extra GSP the gun uses. Due to the way the rules work, you cannot add shots without adding MSP. Also, default autocannons have TERRIBLE GSP efficiency, because they consistently overpenetrate without doing enough damage to anything but infantry.
Vs. Light vehicles, the distribution is still the same, with LAV on top followed by Test LAC. MAC and HAC are down at the bottom - Test MAC is tied for standard LAC vs. light vehicles.
Vs. Medium vehicles I see a distribution I wouldn't prefer. MAV and LAV are more efficient (which is okay) but Test LAC is better than Test MAC is better than Test HAC - ideally it should be MAC on top, but the difference between TLAC and TMAC are less than 4%.
Unfortunately, I'm not happy with the efficiency distribution of the RF AC designs on strictly a per-ton basis:
While RF LAC is now as efficient as PWI vs. any infantry, RF MACs are better than RF LACs vs. Infantry-Heavy.
RF MAC is better vs. Light Vehicles than RF LAC. MAV is better than RF LAC and RF HAC.
Vs. Medium vehicles, RF HAC is less efficient than HAV.
This means there is no use for RF HAC weaponry, as MAV is strictly superior per ton vs. Light, Medium and Heavy vehicles, and RF HAC is very inefficient vs infantry.
Finally, as you say with Lanchester's square law, you don't particularly want to compare by GSP since it may be overall tonnage efficient to win with lower GSP using weapons, but not time-wise, such as with the example that when comparing CtK/(ton*GSP), PWI and PW weaponry is the third and fourth most efficient to kill medium vehicles (when not considering the test ACs) - which is clearly not the case when considering rounds it takes to kill medium vehicles without dedicated AV weaponry.
Thus, my argument for the best way to compare weapons is the highest CtK per ton, to maximize the kills per round and reduce own losses and amount of total GSP used, which reduces total tonnage needed to win.
Kill/Loss ratio depends on the chassis you choose to mount your weapon, and the composition of the OPFOR, which is not what the focus of this topic is supposed to be about - it's intended to make autocannons a reasonable choice.
I am being specific, because this is a discussion strictly about "what gun should I put on my vehicle". Formation compositions to maximize kills and minimize losses are, in themselves, an entirely different discussion because it requires delving into minimizing the damage you take. My argument here is that autocannons are only an RP choice, and have no role where they excel, even "jack of all trades".
Chance to Kill, by itself, is not the most important factor. If the most important thing was chance to kill, the only optimal solution to ground combat would be SHAV weaponry, since it has the highest chance to kill any enemy unit, with the highest penetration and weapons do not have differing chances to hit (just more attempts). You need to maximize the chance to kill per ton, because you transport a specific number of tons, which limits the number of guns you bring. the faster you kill, the less damage you take, and the less total supply you use.
However, you do make a good point about GSP, as GSP does relate to total tonnage you need to transport. I would make the argument that CtK/Ton is a better reflection of the decisions that people make rather than CtK/GSP or even potentially CtK/(ton*GSP), since we are able to keep the vast majority of our logistics outside of the chain of command (transferring elements in as Logistics units are used up) which keeps HQ sizes smaller, which keeps RP costs down for developing the HQs, which also means we have more choices for commanders for our formations.
I did edits to the calculator to compare efficiency as defined as CtK/(ton*GSP), and tweaked the modified ACs to have GSP cost calculated correctly (AP mod*Damage mod*Shots). Note that this did change things slightly. Test LAC has a slightly higher GSP cost, Test MAC has a slightly lower cost, and Test HAC is unaffected. I also added your suggestion of an extra shot with no other modifications to AC penetration and damage. I prefixed these designs with RF for rapid fire. Please access the calculator again and make a new copy if you want to look at the numbers.
The biggest impact of comparing efficiency as CtK/(ton*GSP) seems to be that there's really no difference between the Test ACs vs. regular ACs against infantry, except Test LAC is twice as effective (and above LAV) vs. Infantry Powered Heavy. Using this metric, the RF guns are identical to their normal counterparts, since the extra shot is offset by the extra GSP the gun uses. Due to the way the rules work, you cannot add shots without adding MSP. Also, default autocannons have TERRIBLE GSP efficiency, because they consistently overpenetrate without doing enough damage to anything but infantry.
Vs. Light vehicles, the distribution is still the same, with LAV on top followed by Test LAC. MAC and HAC are down at the bottom - Test MAC is tied for standard LAC vs. light vehicles.
Vs. Medium vehicles I see a distribution I wouldn't prefer. MAV and LAV are more efficient (which is okay) but Test LAC is better than Test MAC is better than Test HAC - ideally it should be MAC on top, but the difference between TLAC and TMAC are less than 4%.
Unfortunately, I'm not happy with the efficiency distribution of the RF AC designs on strictly a per-ton basis:
While RF LAC is now as efficient as PWI vs. any infantry, RF MACs are better than RF LACs vs. Infantry-Heavy.
RF MAC is better vs. Light Vehicles than RF LAC. MAV is better than RF LAC and RF HAC.
Vs. Medium vehicles, RF HAC is less efficient than HAV.
This means there is no use for RF HAC weaponry, as MAV is strictly superior per ton vs. Light, Medium and Heavy vehicles, and RF HAC is very inefficient vs infantry.
Finally, as you say with Lanchester's square law, you don't particularly want to compare by GSP since it may be overall tonnage efficient to win with lower GSP using weapons, but not time-wise, such as with the example that when comparing CtK/(ton*GSP), PWI and PW weaponry is the third and fourth most efficient to kill medium vehicles (when not considering the test ACs) - which is clearly not the case when considering rounds it takes to kill medium vehicles without dedicated AV weaponry.
Thus, my argument for the best way to compare weapons is the highest CtK per ton, to maximize the kills per round and reduce own losses and amount of total GSP used, which reduces total tonnage needed to win.
Kill/Loss ratio depends on the chassis you choose to mount your weapon, and the composition of the OPFOR, which is not what the focus of this topic is supposed to be about - it's intended to make autocannons a reasonable choice.