Posted by: Pedroig
« on: May 20, 2020, 02:20:46 PM »P.S. Commanders frequently survived their only HQ element destruction events. I have no clue if it's WAI or bug.
WAI, but no HQ and no bonuses at all.
WAI, but no HQ and no bonuses at all.
Posted by: consiefe
« on: May 20, 2020, 08:38:33 AM »Making HQ elements non-combat is a big factor in protecting them. While putting arty in the mix and putting them on the support is riskier. I think the benefit is in such a main HQ comes from spare HQ elements. In such HQ, although their numbers are more than one, relative size of total HQ elements is smaller than arty or log components.
The other option is making said HQ with all non-combat elements which I do higher in the command chain and putting them rear of your forces. With more HQ elements -again relatively small in their group, their chance of getting wiped out drops considerably. It obviously depends on if you are on the offansive or defending and bunch of other factors like fortification and terrain features in which planet combat takes place.
The other option is making said HQ with all non-combat elements which I do higher in the command chain and putting them rear of your forces. With more HQ elements -again relatively small in their group, their chance of getting wiped out drops considerably. It obviously depends on if you are on the offansive or defending and bunch of other factors like fortification and terrain features in which planet combat takes place.
Posted by: serger
« on: May 20, 2020, 08:20:40 AM »P.S. Commanders frequently survived their only HQ element destruction events. I have no clue if it's WAI or bug.
Posted by: serger
« on: May 20, 2020, 08:07:29 AM »Quote1. I haven't thoroughly tested relevant game mechanics yet
Others have, so you are arguing your theory against practical experience... Guess which one wins 99/100 times?
I cannot tell how you tested it, and if I say I haven't tested it thoroughly - it does not mean, that I haven't tested some HQ redundancy at all.
But I repeated some series of test battles now, with v1.9.5 and 10x HQ redundancy, and my opinion isn't changed yet:
My regimental force with 1x HQ element in HQ formations are winning battles confidently, opposed by the same tech formations with the same orders (meeting engagement, HQ+Arty in support of front-line units), that have only one difference: OPFOR regiment have 10x MVHQ with additional arty, when my BLUEFOR regiment have only RP-reasoned small guard squads in it, in addition to 1xHQ and several LM elements (OPFOR have more units with more LMs, because they used more LM with their additional arty, so I leaved my regiment 15% under-arrayed to give it no big advantage).
In the end of battle, I have - repeatedly - intact 1x HQ element of my regiment (it's being hit very rarely even after enemy breakthroughs, the only time force commander was KIA - there was complete annihilation of my force due to logistical collapse; HQ element was destroyed standing as the last of it's force at all), 1/3 to 2/3 of my front line troops usually survived, OPFOR front-line segment annihilated and OPFOR 10x-redundancy HQ elements halved or destroyed (by breakthroughs usually, by the logs). In the midtime of combat I have a look at this redundancy HQ - those being hit with arty quite frequently even before breakthroughs, but I cannot make proper stats by such quick tests.
Posted by: consiefe
« on: May 20, 2020, 06:47:44 AM »...
We get a 88-ton command-and-bombardment vehicle element with 1000 tons (standart company-size) of command capacity.
Let's fill our HQ formation with 20x of those HQ elements for redundancy, as it was proposed at A. - it's 20*88t = 1760 tons for the same 1000-ton command capacity (because, as it was already discussed above, HQ capacity cannot be summed inside the same formation).
This formation cannot apply full command bonus even for itself, to say nothing of subordinate company squads!
Attach 4 25-ton squads (company-sized front line combat force) to it, and any command bonus will drop to 36%, and you'll need also 2.7 times more drop transport capacity to deliver this force.
...
I really don't get your math on this. Maybe it's me having difficulties in these quarantine times.
If I make HQ elements out of MVs, I adjust my weight accordingly because as I stated I don't want to cross 10k line. Plus I never ever use 1000 command limit HQs in my formations. Minimum command limit of my smallest group is 40k. So how do you get those ideas even I gave you the details?
And I sincerely want to know what is your grouping? What weight do you use? If I know that, maybe I can see the reason behind what you are telling?
Edit: I read through all posts. Don't get the wrong idea, this HQ concept applies to brigade and above main HQs, not to subordinate HQs. Your math was implying that you think I put all these spare HQs to active combatant formations. No, no. That's why that is not hindering our combat capacity.
Posted by: Pedroig
« on: May 20, 2020, 06:43:50 AM »Quote
1. I haven't thoroughly tested relevant game mechanics yet
Others have, so you are arguing your theory against practical experience... Guess which one wins 99/100 times?
Posted by: serger
« on: May 20, 2020, 06:39:03 AM »I'll try to summarize my view of spare HQ sub-topic.
1. I haven't thoroughly tested relevant game mechanics yet, but from Steve posts (quoted above), there must be no advantage in commander survivability under fire by adding them some spare full-sized HQ elements, because commander KIA chance is determined by their HQ element size. Doubling formation HQ size by adding spare HQ elements of the same size is doubling probability of HQ formation being chosen as target and being hit by deadly fire, and, simultaneously, halving commander's KIA chance by any hit, so 2 x (1/2) = 1x chance multiplier, that is no advantage at all.
1.1. It must be considerable (and even drastic) advantage in commander survivability under fire by adding them midget spare HQs ("command shelters"), though those shelters will not work as effective command infrastructure (commander bonus delivery). If it's exploit - that's a question. It's too cheap, nearly zero cost, but field shelters are not very expensive things. It seems to me as good idea, if you have a home rule to not use them in too much numbers. It can be strong exploit if this "shelter" will provide superior bonuses transition to subordinates, as if it is working combat communications infrastructure instead of cheap tiny shelter.
1.2. To minimize commander's KIA event probability w/o exploits, you have to give them absolutely minimum HQ capability (main HQ element size), that is necessary to provide their full command bonuses to their deployment+subordinate formations. Bigger main HQ element - higher chances of HQ formation being chosen as target. Design main HQ elements as small as it can be without deficit of command capacity to their purposed ground force size. Add command shelters, as described above, if you have no RP objections to this idea, but do no opposing thing: do not expand HQ element capability more than it's necessary to grab your expected force fully. It's even can be good idea to reserve front-line elements (supernumeraries), because they will suffer losses during first phases of battle, and your force size will drop to smth like mean size at HQ capability volume. It can be effective doctrine to count on mean force size during battle, not fresh-and-untouched one, that will be so in ideal circumstances only.
1.3. Don't forget to click "Avoid Combat" checkbox for all HQ elements - it's decreasing chances of being chosen as target greatly, with no described harm to command abilities. I haven't tested if "Avoid Combat" is halving arty's effectiveness, as described in Steve post generally (without mentioning support fire), but if it is - arty components still have their halved effect, so use them in HQ elements if you have no desire to reserve secondary vehicle sockets for AA/FFD/CE components.) I haven't tested too, if opening support or AA fire disables "avoid-combat" status for this element during this combat phase (it will be realistic, but Steve haven't described it, so it can be little exploit).
2. Multiple full-sized spare HQs, being questionally-effective as commander's preservation measure, will be tonnage-coslty inversely proportionally (non-linear) to your force size.
2.1. For topic-starter's force sizes (Marine Company to some temporary composite battalion, combined from several such companies) proposed 20x or even 10x are very costly, it will be thinning front-line segment of you force greatly, that's very bad idea. 2x spare infantry HQs can be used in this level without considerable drop in combat effectiveness.
2.2 For regiment to brigade-size (20 to 100k) 3- or 4-tier overall forces, multiple full-sized spare HQs in upper and middle tiers are not so much tonnage-costly, though very questionally-effective even with very good commanders, if there will be any positive effect at all. 2x spare HQ elements, even vehicle ones, can be used in this level without considerable drop in combat effectiveness.
2.3. For large divisional to army sizes, upper-level HQ multiple redundancy can be nigh-negligable in terms of tonnage saving.
2.4 If HQ redundancy mechanics will work as intended, it's higher-level better tonnage-costs must be considered with caution, because higher-tier commander bonuses will affect combat troops an masse with lesser bonus transition multipliers.
1. I haven't thoroughly tested relevant game mechanics yet, but from Steve posts (quoted above), there must be no advantage in commander survivability under fire by adding them some spare full-sized HQ elements, because commander KIA chance is determined by their HQ element size. Doubling formation HQ size by adding spare HQ elements of the same size is doubling probability of HQ formation being chosen as target and being hit by deadly fire, and, simultaneously, halving commander's KIA chance by any hit, so 2 x (1/2) = 1x chance multiplier, that is no advantage at all.
1.1. It must be considerable (and even drastic) advantage in commander survivability under fire by adding them midget spare HQs ("command shelters"), though those shelters will not work as effective command infrastructure (commander bonus delivery). If it's exploit - that's a question. It's too cheap, nearly zero cost, but field shelters are not very expensive things. It seems to me as good idea, if you have a home rule to not use them in too much numbers. It can be strong exploit if this "shelter" will provide superior bonuses transition to subordinates, as if it is working combat communications infrastructure instead of cheap tiny shelter.
1.2. To minimize commander's KIA event probability w/o exploits, you have to give them absolutely minimum HQ capability (main HQ element size), that is necessary to provide their full command bonuses to their deployment+subordinate formations. Bigger main HQ element - higher chances of HQ formation being chosen as target. Design main HQ elements as small as it can be without deficit of command capacity to their purposed ground force size. Add command shelters, as described above, if you have no RP objections to this idea, but do no opposing thing: do not expand HQ element capability more than it's necessary to grab your expected force fully. It's even can be good idea to reserve front-line elements (supernumeraries), because they will suffer losses during first phases of battle, and your force size will drop to smth like mean size at HQ capability volume. It can be effective doctrine to count on mean force size during battle, not fresh-and-untouched one, that will be so in ideal circumstances only.
1.3. Don't forget to click "Avoid Combat" checkbox for all HQ elements - it's decreasing chances of being chosen as target greatly, with no described harm to command abilities. I haven't tested if "Avoid Combat" is halving arty's effectiveness, as described in Steve post generally (without mentioning support fire), but if it is - arty components still have their halved effect, so use them in HQ elements if you have no desire to reserve secondary vehicle sockets for AA/FFD/CE components.) I haven't tested too, if opening support or AA fire disables "avoid-combat" status for this element during this combat phase (it will be realistic, but Steve haven't described it, so it can be little exploit).
2. Multiple full-sized spare HQs, being questionally-effective as commander's preservation measure, will be tonnage-coslty inversely proportionally (non-linear) to your force size.
2.1. For topic-starter's force sizes (Marine Company to some temporary composite battalion, combined from several such companies) proposed 20x or even 10x are very costly, it will be thinning front-line segment of you force greatly, that's very bad idea. 2x spare infantry HQs can be used in this level without considerable drop in combat effectiveness.
2.2 For regiment to brigade-size (20 to 100k) 3- or 4-tier overall forces, multiple full-sized spare HQs in upper and middle tiers are not so much tonnage-costly, though very questionally-effective even with very good commanders, if there will be any positive effect at all. 2x spare HQ elements, even vehicle ones, can be used in this level without considerable drop in combat effectiveness.
2.3. For large divisional to army sizes, upper-level HQ multiple redundancy can be nigh-negligable in terms of tonnage saving.
2.4 If HQ redundancy mechanics will work as intended, it's higher-level better tonnage-costs must be considered with caution, because higher-tier commander bonuses will affect combat troops an masse with lesser bonus transition multipliers.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: May 20, 2020, 05:49:13 AM »Advanced Genetic EnhancementThink twice if you really want all the possible extra training on them. As others said, the cost is multiplying and thus goes up real fast. AGE and BC are of course a must but if you don't intend these to be more than "pathfinder"-type unit on planets/moons then the other stuff is somewhat unnecessary - you don't need combat bonuses for FFD after all and the marines can still defend the FFD-element well enough. With enough Construction Complexes this, of course, becomes less of an issue.
Boarding Combat
Desert Warfare
Extreme Pressure Combat
Extreme Temperature Combat
High Gravity Combat
Jungle Warfare
Low Gravity Combat
Mountain Warfare
Posted by: serger
« on: May 20, 2020, 04:37:28 AM »Deciding that the 'full-size command unit' must be an 88 ton vehicle rather than a 10 ton basic infantry company HQ and absolutely has to be present in 20 copies is certainly a way one could avoid considering the ideas involved.
Sorry, but I'm wondering if you read posts you are answering.
1. I'm not deciding those thing you are mentioning - that's what I quoted from my opponent, not bring from my head! I just combined 3 things, my opponent proposed in this thread, obviously as parts of their common principle of building ground combat forces. I mention and quote it over and over again!
2. My reasons to avoid this idea are not what you mention here. Here I'm critisizing what was proposed with details, not a basic idea of doubling HQ elements. As for doubling HQ elements as basic idea - there was my other posts above, about KIA chances with current mechanics how it's described in corresponding threads. Over and over again, too.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: May 19, 2020, 11:32:14 PM »Deciding that the 'full-size command unit' must be an 88 ton vehicle rather than a 10 ton basic infantry company HQ and absolutely has to be present in 20 copies is certainly a way one could avoid considering the ideas involved.
Posted by: serger
« on: May 19, 2020, 10:54:52 PM »Well, let's count.
A. "This is a suggestion to add 20x full-size HQ elements"
B. "whatever command limit I set and whatever type it is"
C. "If you make two slots HQ unit one of them being bombardment weapons"
We are discussing marine companies, so let's design marine MV HQ+HB, as it mentioned in C., to deal with some marine armours. (Surely not boarding marine, because there is no boarding vehicle in this version of Aurora. It must be drop-purpose marine company with it's HQ formation.)
We get a 88-ton command-and-bombardment vehicle element with 1000 tons (standart company-size) of command capacity.
Let's fill our HQ formation with 20x of those HQ elements for redundancy, as it was proposed at A. - it's 20*88t = 1760 tons for the same 1000-ton command capacity (because, as it was already discussed above, HQ capacity cannot be summed inside the same formation).
This formation cannot apply full command bonus even for itself, to say nothing of subordinate company squads!
Attach 4 25-ton squads (company-sized front line combat force) to it, and any command bonus will drop to 36%, and you'll need also 2.7 times more drop transport capacity to deliver this force.
So, do not try it in home!
B. statement is not effective to this thread's formation size.
Let's try some better case: 4-tier (brigade) force.
It's useless to add redundancy to the upper level, because, as we discussed above, it can be used to transfer superior bonuses only, so no superior level - no redundancy usability.
It's also useless to make company HQ formations, so we'll have only 2 tiers of 20x-redundant HQ formations: regimental (let it be 20k) and battalion (4k) levels.
Let's degign MV+HB HQs.
20k command size - 178-ton MV, 4k command - 98-ton MV.
20x178=3560 ton. That's ok, 17.8% of command size, good commander will compensate this loss.
20x98=1960 ton. That's nearly 50% of command size, and I think no commander will be able to compensate this with their bonus even for full-arrayed subordinate formations. (Front line formations will suffer losses during battle, so it will be even less combat power to deal with by bonuses closer to the end of battle.)
Add some LM and specialized arty to HQ formations, as described above, and your front-line force will be even thinner, less then a third of overall drop force, and their high- and middle-level commanders will have arty bonuses in preference of offence bonuses, to use this huge arty load effectively.
I think it will be cannon-fodder, if you have no divisible tech or mass superiority.
A. "This is a suggestion to add 20x full-size HQ elements"
B. "whatever command limit I set and whatever type it is"
C. "If you make two slots HQ unit one of them being bombardment weapons"
We are discussing marine companies, so let's design marine MV HQ+HB, as it mentioned in C., to deal with some marine armours. (Surely not boarding marine, because there is no boarding vehicle in this version of Aurora. It must be drop-purpose marine company with it's HQ formation.)
We get a 88-ton command-and-bombardment vehicle element with 1000 tons (standart company-size) of command capacity.
Let's fill our HQ formation with 20x of those HQ elements for redundancy, as it was proposed at A. - it's 20*88t = 1760 tons for the same 1000-ton command capacity (because, as it was already discussed above, HQ capacity cannot be summed inside the same formation).
This formation cannot apply full command bonus even for itself, to say nothing of subordinate company squads!
Attach 4 25-ton squads (company-sized front line combat force) to it, and any command bonus will drop to 36%, and you'll need also 2.7 times more drop transport capacity to deliver this force.
So, do not try it in home!
B. statement is not effective to this thread's formation size.
Let's try some better case: 4-tier (brigade) force.
It's useless to add redundancy to the upper level, because, as we discussed above, it can be used to transfer superior bonuses only, so no superior level - no redundancy usability.
It's also useless to make company HQ formations, so we'll have only 2 tiers of 20x-redundant HQ formations: regimental (let it be 20k) and battalion (4k) levels.
Let's degign MV+HB HQs.
20k command size - 178-ton MV, 4k command - 98-ton MV.
20x178=3560 ton. That's ok, 17.8% of command size, good commander will compensate this loss.
20x98=1960 ton. That's nearly 50% of command size, and I think no commander will be able to compensate this with their bonus even for full-arrayed subordinate formations. (Front line formations will suffer losses during battle, so it will be even less combat power to deal with by bonuses closer to the end of battle.)
Add some LM and specialized arty to HQ formations, as described above, and your front-line force will be even thinner, less then a third of overall drop force, and their high- and middle-level commanders will have arty bonuses in preference of offence bonuses, to use this huge arty load effectively.
I think it will be cannon-fodder, if you have no divisible tech or mass superiority.
Posted by: consiefe
« on: May 19, 2020, 09:40:55 PM »Ok, my all wish was and is well. I just tried to give what I think is a good advice. I still do. Refer my edit in the last post, because I think it clears my stand point. 
Posted by: serger
« on: May 19, 2020, 09:36:42 PM »This is Steve's test unit. I got the idea from here and started to think about it.
I have no clue why Steve made it with 2 HQ elements - minimax is not Steve's style of play, so it can be any sort of roleplay, copying some real OOB or using some game mechanics we are guessing only.
Edit: And did you try to alter the command limit value on element design screen?
Surely I did!
How I can deal with HQ element sizes if I did not?
I think it's again somehow about I confused formations with elements, but again: no, I was about elements from the start.
Posted by: consiefe
« on: May 19, 2020, 09:20:39 PM »But all along, a few people told you the same concept. We put more than one HQ elements in a HQ formation.
Arrrrrgh!!!!
I'm about the same thing from the start to the latest posts! - about adding HQ elements to our HQ formations!
That's not a point of disagreement, I have no idea why we are discussing this strange idea of having spare HQ formations as if I was about it.
The last discussion turn with Ulzgoroth was about the sizes of these HQ elements, and Ulzgoroth argued that you was about full-sized spare elements. But you was about 10x or 20x spare HQs for any 1-level combat force, and you described MV HQs also, not infantry only. That cannot be full-sized MV HQ, bacause there will be nearly no space for combat elements at all.
I have no clue why we are discussing spare formation HQs instead of it as if it's the only other option...
But I WAS about extra HQ elements in a HQ formation. So Ulzgoroth was right about that. About HQs I gave this example: If you want your anti-tank formation to be more resistant against getting killed, you add more elements in it. I was referring it for the HQ formation only. I was not about putting HQs into other combat formations.
Whatever you make up your HQ formations with, be it Vehicle or Infantry type, I was telling you it's a good idea to put some extra of those HQ elements in it.
Edit:
To be clear;
My typical HQ :
10x HQ Elements (whatever command limit I set and whatever type it is)
100x Logistics (whatever type again)
25x-50x Bombardment Units
I try not to cross 10k tonnage, while I do this. That's all it is.
Posted by: serger
« on: May 19, 2020, 09:15:30 PM »But all along, a few people told you the same concept. We put more than one HQ elements in a HQ formation.
Arrrrrgh!!!!
I'm about the same thing from the start to the latest posts! - about adding HQ elements to our HQ formations!
That's not a point of disagreement, I have no idea why we are discussing this strange idea of having spare HQ formations as if I was about it.
The last discussion turn with Ulzgoroth was about the sizes of these HQ elements, and Ulzgoroth argued that you was about full-sized spare elements. But you was about 10x or 20x spare HQs for any 1-level combat force, and you described MV HQs also, not infantry only. That cannot be full-sized MV HQ, bacause there will be nearly no space for combat elements at all.
I have no clue why we are discussing spare formation HQs instead of it as if it's the only other option...
