Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
What is the fourth planet?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Whitecold
« on: October 01, 2018, 05:36:36 PM »

The whole supply discussion seems to boil down that since high damage weapons also happen to have the high AP values, supply usage effectively scales as dmg^2
Using the sqrt of either AP or DMG would likely reduce the impact a lot, or adding an offset as in (Base AP+1)* base dmg to prevent low dmg/low ap weapons to be overwhelming.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 01, 2018, 04:31:03 PM »

Artillery isn't really meant for the anti-armour role. It's job is to deal with infantry and light vehicles, this is even true in real life combat. Anti vehicle weapons are for destroying things like tanks.

Also, what you see early on on the battlefield won't be the same as what you'll see in later eras. I would expect that by the early fusion era you start seeing super heavies and ultra heavies deploying on the battlefield, and for those you absolutely need dedicated anti-vehicle weapons. Especially if they start breaking out the heavier armour schemes they have access to, Auto Cannons and HCAP won't break through otherwise.

Yes... but artillery are not very effective at either in comparison with the amount of supplies it cost to use them, that is the problem.

For anti-vehicle duty you get some anti-vehicle cannons for tanks then the Auto-Cannon is more effective since it also is potentially MORE effective against lighter vehicles as well as heavy ones.

I'm not so sure those ultra heavy things will be so effective when just a few static heavy anti-vehicle cannons will take them out for a really low cost.

You are simply better of with more of a mix of infantry and static or infantry units with HCAP and some Anti-Vehicle cannons. Those big monsters are going to be absolutely worthless against an infantry and anti-tank mix.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: October 01, 2018, 04:11:24 PM »

Artillery isn't really meant for the anti-armour role. It's job is to deal with infantry and light vehicles, this is even true in real life combat. Anti vehicle weapons are for destroying things like tanks.

Also, what you see early on on the battlefield won't be the same as what you'll see in later eras. I would expect that by the early fusion era you start seeing super heavies and ultra heavies deploying on the battlefield, and for those you absolutely need dedicated anti-vehicle weapons. Especially if they start breaking out the heavier armour schemes they have access to, Auto Cannons and HCAP won't break through otherwise.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 01, 2018, 03:38:45 PM »

Let me clarify my point then.

High damage weapons wasting supply due to sheer overkill is not a flaw of the system. It is partially balanced by many high damage weapons also being high AP weapons and thus when hitting heavily armoured and high HP units (as larger vehicles often are) being exponentially more effective than weapons that are low damage and thus also low AP.

Sure for Anti-Vehicle weapons it might work out but even there the Auto-Cannon (except for the light one) are probably way better from a supply per shot perspective and enough AP to be effective in the Anti-Vehicle role. I would probably arm all my regular tanks with Auto-cannons and HCAP and only some few specialist vehicles/statics with one or more Anti-Vehicle weapons

For artillery it is really atrocious with that high damage and low AP, heavy artillery especially but even medium artillery is super expensive in comparison with how effective HCAP is at killing vehicles for supplies used.

This is pure math in my opinion. The thing is that supplies is part of the same factory output so if ignoring artillery and bring more infantry and HCAP is both cheaper and more effective that is what you would do outside role-play.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: October 01, 2018, 03:28:03 PM »

Let me clarify my point then.

High damage weapons wasting supply due to sheer overkill is not a flaw of the system. It is partially balanced by many high damage weapons also being high AP weapons and thus when hitting heavily armoured and high HP units (as larger vehicles often are) being exponentially more effective than weapons that are low damage and thus also low AP.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 01, 2018, 03:19:59 PM »

Keep in mind that there's reasons no military supplies every infantry man with a rocket launcher and a bunch of rockets as his main weapon.

Most of those reasons are supply based.

Rockets and rocket launchers are expensive, compared bullets and guns, and tend to run out much quicker besides.

That has nothing to do with anything since either artillery need to have an exponential effect like AP versus Armour or high damage weapons need to cost less supplies. I would like the first option if possible.

Such as unopposed artillery are extremely damaging or better yet decrease damage against supported front units as well as increase their damage output would be better.

Artillery that are countered in some way loose some of that effect and only deal some damage like now.

This would make them more realistic and make the supply draw more balanced, I think.

The problem are as I said that damage and  hit point have a linear relationship and AP versus Armour is exponential, very different impact on the battle.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: October 01, 2018, 03:10:47 PM »

Keep in mind that there's reasons no military supplies every infantry man with a rocket launcher and a bunch of rockets as his main weapon.

Most of those reasons are supply based.

Rockets and rocket launchers are expensive, compared bullets and guns, and tend to run out much quicker besides.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 01, 2018, 10:53:36 AM »

Steve... I would at least encourage you to look at what impact increased Damage of weapons have to the supply use of weapons.

Number of shots will always increase the total damage output of weapons and AP will vary according to an exponential curve and can therefor be either wasted or very efficient for the supply it draw.

Damage on the other hand only have a linear effect on a units HP and any damage above hit point is always wasted. This mean that having a damage of 10 is always preferable from a supply and cost perspective. The initial cost if the weapon are probably less important than the amount of supply you will tend to use in the long run.

So damage need to either be reflected in build/maintenance or supply cost as an efficiency factor. I would make it so that damage is not increased linear with increase in damage for supply for that reason. That is a damage 60 weapon would not draw six times more supply than a damage 10 weapon. I think this is something worth considering.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: September 30, 2018, 06:00:57 PM »

Do Precursor ground forces have the same logistical constraints as players/NPRs?

Because, well, that gives us another way to get rid of them. Just throw heavily armoured units at them until they run out of bullets.


Yes, this is probably really expensive. But useful as long as you can stack the defenses.

Yes, the precursor ground forces have supply vehicles.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: September 30, 2018, 05:31:09 PM »

Do Precursor ground forces have the same logistical constraints as players/NPRs?

Because, well, that gives us another way to get rid of them. Just throw heavily armoured units at them until they run out of bullets.


Yes, this is probably really expensive. But useful as long as you can stack the defenses.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: September 30, 2018, 11:38:59 AM »

Why not fix it before release if possible... ;)

Because a fundamental Agile principle is to deliver a working vertical slice as quickly as possible and worry about fine-tuning the details in later iterations because you're almost certain to get them (the details) wrong if you try to plan them up-front :)

Note that the above should not be construed to be a criticism of the thought experiments being performed in this thread - it was simply that I saw a straight line that was too good to pass up :)  I think the thought experiments/discussions are fine as long as they don't jam up the main threads (and kudos to the OP who pulled a topic that would get lots of discussion into a separate thread from the start), and if they turn up an egregious problem then it gives Steve an opportunity to fix it before release.  But in terms of figuring out how the complex systems of rules will behave with one another, nothing beats actual experiments where a functioning game is in the hands of users who are trying to maximize their outcomes.  So having Steve spend a lot of time trying to get the "20" (in the sense of 80/20) right upfront risks actually delaying getting to the end goal of having a good working game.  From comments Steve has posted in the past I'm sure he understands this, so I'm confident that he'll fix whatever he thinks is sure to be a big enough problem to justify the schedule delay and defer the rest of it to Father Tim's 1.0.1

John

Yes, I am working on these lines. The ground combat system is complex, with a lot of competing factors that will have different weights in different situations. Until I run some combats with the constraints of a real campaign, I don't really know what the main problems will be. At the moment, I am working toward starting a single-race campaign with one or more NPRs and spoilers. Today, I am have working on ground forces for precursors, to ensure that players encounter some early ground combat situations.

I'm pretty sure you understand we are very appreciative of all your efforts no matter what...  ;)
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: September 30, 2018, 11:36:13 AM »

Why not fix it before release if possible... ;)

Because a fundamental Agile principle is to deliver a working vertical slice as quickly as possible and worry about fine-tuning the details in later iterations because you're almost certain to get them (the details) wrong if you try to plan them up-front :)

Note that the above should not be construed to be a criticism of the thought experiments being performed in this thread - it was simply that I saw a straight line that was too good to pass up :)  I think the thought experiments/discussions are fine as long as they don't jam up the main threads (and kudos to the OP who pulled a topic that would get lots of discussion into a separate thread from the start), and if they turn up an egregious problem then it gives Steve an opportunity to fix it before release.  But in terms of figuring out how the complex systems of rules will behave with one another, nothing beats actual experiments where a functioning game is in the hands of users who are trying to maximize their outcomes.  So having Steve spend a lot of time trying to get the "20" (in the sense of 80/20) right upfront risks actually delaying getting to the end goal of having a good working game.  From comments Steve has posted in the past I'm sure he understands this, so I'm confident that he'll fix whatever he thinks is sure to be a big enough problem to justify the schedule delay and defer the rest of it to Father Tim's 1.0.1

John

Yes, I am working on these lines. The ground combat system is complex, with a lot of competing factors that will have different weights in different situations. Until I run some combats with the constraints of a real campaign, I don't really know what the main problems will be. At the moment, I am working toward starting a single-race campaign with one or more NPRs and spoilers. Today, I am have working on ground forces for precursors, to ensure that players encounter some early ground combat situations.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: September 30, 2018, 11:32:57 AM »

I am not that familiar with the new ground system yet. But was wondering if units like artillery in the background can be attacked by air wings? At least that is what they are supposed to do, when not directly supporting the front lines.

If air wings are supporting a formation that comes under attack by hostile supporting artillery, that artillery becomes one of the targets that the air wing is eligible to attack.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: September 30, 2018, 11:19:15 AM »

I am not that familiar with the new ground system yet. But was wondering if units like artillery in the background can be attacked by air wings? At least that is what they are supposed to do, when not directly supporting the front lines.

I'm pretty sure air-force will be able to hit support elements, but they are perhaps less likely to hit the rear part rather than the front lines in the same way attacking units in the front line are.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: September 30, 2018, 11:17:51 AM »

Why not fix it before release if possible... ;)

Because a fundamental Agile principle is to deliver a working vertical slice as quickly as possible and worry about fine-tuning the details in later iterations because you're almost certain to get them (the details) wrong if you try to plan them up-front :)

Note that the above should not be construed to be a criticism of the thought experiments being performed in this thread - it was simply that I saw a straight line that was too good to pass up :)  I think the thought experiments/discussions are fine as long as they don't jam up the main threads (and kudos to the OP who pulled a topic that would get lots of discussion into a separate thread from the start), and if they turn up an egregious problem then it gives Steve an opportunity to fix it before release.  But in terms of figuring out how the complex systems of rules will behave with one another, nothing beats actual experiments where a functioning game is in the hands of users who are trying to maximize their outcomes.  So having Steve spend a lot of time trying to get the "20" (in the sense of 80/20) right upfront risks actually delaying getting to the end goal of having a good working game.  From comments Steve has posted in the past I'm sure he understands this, so I'm confident that he'll fix whatever he thinks is sure to be a big enough problem to justify the schedule delay and defer the rest of it to Father Tim's 1.0.1

John

Yes... I don't think delaying the release of the game for this should be a priority.

I also agree that practical experience will quickly see any glaring imbalances.

Though... I think that things such as Artillery, Tanks, Air-force and Anti-Air should not just be a function of hits and kills. When you have it like that you will quite fast find the best solution to most problems (disregarding the rock/paper/scissor style of AP versus Armour).

Air bombardment and artillery should instead enable/disable attacks, tanks and infantry should have some impact on each others abilities other than pure combat hit/kills and Anti-air should mainly suppress enemy air-attacks rather then kill the air-craft as its main job. Bombardment from space should act like artillery but be suppressed by OTS weapons in the same way anti-air suppress air-force attacks.

If there is sort of a logarithmic effect of these weapon types you will have huge advantages with your air-force if there are no Anti-air as one example. The same with Artillery and Orbital bombardment... this is basically how things work in real life.

As is, the benefit of most support are basically just a shift to the left or right (and linear) and I guess there is very little difference from deploying just infantry in defence or back them up with some artillery and slightly less infantry.

If those support elements can give you huge benefits if unopposed it will be very hard to argue against a high supply draw even if it has a marginal effect since the enemy brought enough artillery and air-force to suppress it effectively and you the same. But if they did not have a counter to your artillery you would be almost unstoppable (given roughly equal ground forces).

This is of course just my opinion....  :)
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55