Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Mechanics => Topic started by: Entaro on November 22, 2021, 05:52:47 PM
-
Hello. As a beginner, I don't want to spend too much time and resources building a ground army. Is it possible to conquer the world of NPR with simple infantry?
And what is the optimal size of "divisions"? What size (approximately) armies usually conquer foreign "home planets"?
-
Hello. As a beginner, I don't want to spend too much time and resources building a ground army. Is it possible to conquer the world of NPR with simple infantry?
And what is the optimal size of "divisions"? What size (approximately) armies usually conquer foreign "home planets"?
In general you can use Infantry to win... make sure you use allot of infantry with CAP weapons which are the most effective. For anti-armour duty you build pure anti-armour units which you hold in rear echelon or in space on the ships in orbit until most of the enemy infantry has been dealt with.
A good size of formation is probably somewhere about 25kt of troops as it suites the number of ground combat commanders. A good size for division are then about 100kt, roughly. Artillery is not really that useful, that is more for role-play than anything. But it all come down to role-play and what is fun in the end... this is against the AI though, against other player controlled forces it is more complicated.
But the main idea is that you combat the infantry first and their other units second. Some tanks formations with only CAP weapons are good to for the breakthrough value, but tanks cost way more than infantry so you get more killing power using infantry but some cheap tanks are good to take some of the enemy fire-power.
-
Hello. As a beginner, I don't want to spend too much time and resources building a ground army. Is it possible to conquer the world of NPR with simple infantry?
Yes, if you want to be boring about it. ;)
In Aurora nearly any combination of ground units which is not too silly (if you send 500,000 infantry with nothing but SAM launchers into battle you have only yourself to blame) will be able to win a battle. The far more important factors are relative size of forces (quadratic effect) and relative technology levels (fourth-power effect). Infantry armies are actually quite efficient due to being able to deploy a lot of light weapons without overhead from using a heavier base class, but they will take a lot of losses so you will be building a lot of replacements.
And what is the optimal size of "divisions"? What size (approximately) armies usually conquer foreign "home planets"?
The best size for a basic front-line formation is probably 20k or 25k tons, mainly due to the need for a lot of commanders. If you want to use multiple HQ levels (not required, but good for flavor and to use the support weapons), each HQ formation should be the same size and have a large enough HQ to control about 3 sub-formations. For example, if you consider 25k ton Brigades as your base unit, then a "Division" formation would have 25k tons (of support weapons, supplies, etc.) and a HQ able to control 100k tons, and you would attach 3x Brigades to that Division. A Corps could then control three Divisions (HQ size 325k tons), and an Army formation might control a million tons (3 Corps).
Usually to conquer an NPR home world you will need several million tons of ground forces at a minimum, possibly even in excess of 10 million in some cases. This requires building up a large number of ground force training centers and researching the ground forces training techs ideally.
A reasonable kind of line infantry formation might look like:
1x STA+HQ25
3000x INF+PW
300x INF+CAP
150x INF+LAV
100x INF+LB
186x INF+LOG-S
This is a reasonable 25k ton infantry brigade (actually 24,997 tons) with a good mix of support weapons but a focus on killing enemy infantry first and foremost. It is important to have a high proportion of basic rifles (PW component) so that combat losses will not mount up too quickly among the heavier support weapons. If you want to use higher HQ formations, the key components to use are bombardment (LB and MB are fine) and if you research Construction Equipment it is good to include some of these as well to improve your fortification levels. Note that NPRs do not use ground support fighters so the AA components are unnecessary unless for roleplay or use in multiple-player-race games.
It is also important to consider your logistics solutions, simply put to mount a successful planetary invasion you will need a lot of extra supplies. The best way to do this right now is to make formations with nothing but INF+LOG-S units, place these in the rear echelon, and set to "Use As Replacements" with the checkbox in the main ground forces window. These will replace the organic LOG-S in your front line formations as they are consumed (or, occasionally, suffer combat losses).
Finally, consider how you will get your multiple millions of tons of ground units into the battle zone. You need transports, especially drop-capable transports, and you also will probably need to deal with STO weapons on the ground - either by nuking them from orbit, or by using heavily-armored (8-12 layers of armor at least) drop-capable transports to absorb the ground fire and deploy your troops as quickly as possible. Either way, you need to build a lot of transports, so get started early.
-
Actually, from a math perspective though CAP infantry reduce losses better by destroying the enemy troops that fire on them. So from a pure math perspective an all CAP infantry army is preferable. Tanks with CAP is also OK, medium tanks is best for this from a cost perspective as they are good at soaking up hits from the enemy infantry for a relatively cheap price, you can even give them light armour to make them half the cost and still doing pretty much the same job equally well.
The system works pretty well when not alll you meet is infantry, but NPR are a bit too infantry heavy for combined arms to be very effective.
Infantry with PW is mainly a way to drag combat out to soak losses so you may perhaps be able to send reinforcements to an invasion, infantry is not that good at winning combat. Infantry with PWL is even better at dragging out combat as they are pretty cheap to train, but you are not being very nice from a humanitarian perspective... ;)
To put it into some perspective... a medium tank with two CAP and light armour cost you 1.68 BP, an infantry with CAP has a cost of 0.24 BP and infantry with PW the cost is 0.1 BP. So for 17 infantry you get one medium tank that fires 12 shots, this is hands down very effective... so against NPR they are very effective... I would say about 40-60% tanks and rest CAP infantry for wave one and then some anti-armour formations to mop up once a large chunk of the enemy infantry is destroyed. The tank also only take up half the space on your assault transport versus those 17 infantry.
This is pretty boring and gamey and not how it works in the real world, but that is how the mechanic works. You also should never mix weapons in vehicles either so you can deploy them when you need them based on the enemies composition and battle fatigue.
-
Emphasis you need to land those millions of tons of troops quickly. If you land half a million tons and then another half a million tons every 2 weeks each invasion wave will be wiped out before the reinforcements arrive. So build lots of transports and stage your troops through a forward base close to the target planet preferably a moon so the gap between waves on target is a minimum.
Also unless you can land most of your troops in one wave you have to kill those STO weapons or they will eventually attrit your transports to death with repeated hits each time they land troops.
-
Emphasis you need to land those millions of tons of troops quickly. If you land half a million tons and then another half a million tons every 2 weeks each invasion wave will be wiped out before the reinforcements arrive. So build lots of transports and stage your troops through a forward base close to the target planet preferably a moon so the gap between waves on target is a minimum.
Also unless you can land most of your troops in one wave you have to kill those STO weapons or they will eventually attrit your transports to death with repeated hits each time they land troops.
I would probably never assault a planet without getting rid of those STO weapons first through bombardment and then you can use cheap transport to land your entire army at once... probably cheaper in the long run as once a transport is built you don't need to pay for it ever again, so you can build up a large capacity of troops transports if you really need it. You also can't rely in the fact there will be a good staging area nearby either and using ships with drop pods is extremely expensive. I only use assault transports on smaller colonies where I don't need multiple million of troops to conquer them. For the price of one heavily armoured, fast assault transport with drop pods you probably can have three or four regular cheap transports who are slow, cheap and fragile. They only show up once an area is secured.
-
Actually, from a math perspective though CAP infantry reduce losses better by destroying the enemy troops that fire on them. So from a pure math perspective an all CAP infantry army is preferable.
I'm not sure this is correct. I have not run the numbers for a large planetary army, but when we had a mathy thread about ship combat some time ago the conclusion was that while CAP marines have the faster killing rate, they also suffer more loss of tonnage (which is what matters for replacing losses after a battle) per boarding assault than the same tonnage of PWL marines. The optimum was conjectured to be some combination of PWL and CAP marines but the exact balance was not known.
For CAP and PW infantry in planetary combat I expect that it is a much closer comparison. CAP is 250% as effective per ton in terms of killing power (PW: 0.2 shots per ton, CAP: 0.5 shots per ton), however when INF is the base class CAP costs 240% as much tonnage per kill scored by the enemy - so it is very close, at least close enough that I would consider each type roughly equally viable (certainly, weight of numbers or technology will easily eclipse the effect of PW/CAP choice). In this case I would again conjecture that there is some optimal mix of PW/CAP infantry but I do not have any numerical analysis to prove this. Of course once we start thinking about mounting CAP on other base types (static or vehicle, both have advantages) then we get into a more complex analysis as such CAP-armed units are more resilient but also improve the effectiveness of the enemy's heavy weapons such as LAV/MAV.
Given the closeness of these weapon types I also would suggest that the ability of PW infantry to outlast the enemy is often valuable, for example when your transport capacity is small enough that you require multiple waves of combat drops to land all of your forces then you may want your first waves to survive longer and then support the following waves. Longer-lasting front line formations are also essential for maximizing the effect of artillery and other force multipliers if you choose to use these which I think most players who do not cheese everything with SHV/UHV do because big guns that explode things are fun.
-
Usually to conquer an NPR home world you will need several million tons of ground forces at a minimum, possibly even in excess of 10 million in some cases. This requires building up a large number of ground force training centers and researching the ground forces training techs ideally.
A reasonable kind of line infantry formation might look like:
1x STA+HQ25
3000x INF+PW
300x INF+CAP
150x INF+LAV
100x INF+LB
186x INF+LOG-S
This is a reasonable 25k ton infantry brigade (actually 24,997 tons) with a good mix of support weapons but a focus on killing enemy infantry first and foremost. It is important to have a high proportion of basic rifles (PW component) so that combat losses will not mount up too quickly among the heavier support weapons. If you want to use higher HQ formations, the key components to use are bombardment (LB and MB are fine) and if you research Construction Equipment it is good to include some of these as well to improve your fortification levels. Note that NPRs do not use ground support fighters so the AA components are unnecessary unless for roleplay or use in multiple-player-race games.
This is exactly what I needed, thank you very much! I'll try to do something, but I'm not at all sure that I can beat NPR - so far he has much more than mine!)
Do I understand correctly that I must completely destroy all the fortresses of the planetary defense from orbit?
Is there any other way to help the troops from orbit? What weapons do you need for this?
I would like, ideally, not to damage the industry of the captured planet too much ...
-
Do I understand correctly that I must completely destroy all the fortresses of the planetary defense from orbit?
You don't have to but it is probably the best strategy in most cases.
Is there any other way to help the troops from orbit? What weapons do you need for this?
I would like, ideally, not to damage the industry of the captured planet too much ...
You can use the FFD component to allow ships in orbit to support ground forces, if and only if they are armed with beam weapons. In this case you might want a formation more like:
1x STA+HQ25
3000x INF+PW
300x INF+CAP
150x INF+LAV
100x INF+LB
4x INF+FFD
162x INF+LOG-S
A bit less supplies but with a good replacement formations strategy this is not a problem.
However, using this method the ships in orbit will only fire once per ground combat increment (8 hours). Since beam weapons can fire much more rapidly, it may be more effective to target the enemy ground troops directly to do naval bombardment - in this case, ships with missiles can also participate. While this method is more effective, it will also cause far more collateral damage due to the much lower accuracy of each shot.
The advantage to using FFD and the orbital support mechanic, rather than naval bombardment (these sound similar but reference quite different tactics!), is the relatively light collateral damage. Orbital support also makes better use of your limited MSPs which will be consumed as you fire your weapons to do repairs - at 1% chance of failure per weapon firing, you will chew through your MSPs quite quickly in either case, but orbital support is more accurate so you will score more hits per MSP consumed.
Again, however, missile-only ships or fleets cannot do orbital support, and must do naval bombardment or stand off entirely.
I would probably recommend the following procedure:
- Naval bombardment to eliminate all STOs (STOs are revealed only once they fire, so you must bait them into shooting at you - firing a wave of missiles is a good way to accomplish this with low risk).
- Optionally, naval bombardment until you have reduced the enemy forces to a size that you think you can handle with ground combat. This ideally strikes a balance between securing victory and limiting collateral damage. Note that the amount of ground forces you detect by your active sensors may be anywhere from 2x to 6x as much in reality, since fortification reduces the sensor signature of ground units.
- Land troops and use orbital support if applicable and desired.
-
I'm not sure this is correct. I have not run the numbers for a large planetary army, but when we had a mathy thread about ship combat some time ago the conclusion was that while CAP marines have the faster killing rate, they also suffer more loss of tonnage (which is what matters for replacing losses after a battle) per boarding assault than the same tonnage of PWL marines. The optimum was conjectured to be some combination of PWL and CAP marines but the exact balance was not known.
For CAP and PW infantry in planetary combat I expect that it is a much closer comparison. CAP is 250% as effective per ton in terms of killing power (PW: 0.2 shots per ton, CAP: 0.5 shots per ton), however when INF is the base class CAP costs 240% as much tonnage per kill scored by the enemy - so it is very close, at least close enough that I would consider each type roughly equally viable (certainly, weight of numbers or technology will easily eclipse the effect of PW/CAP choice). In this case I would again conjecture that there is some optimal mix of PW/CAP infantry but I do not have any numerical analysis to prove this. Of course once we start thinking about mounting CAP on other base types (static or vehicle, both have advantages) then we get into a more complex analysis as such CAP-armed units are more resilient but also improve the effectiveness of the enemy's heavy weapons such as LAV/MAV.
Given the closeness of these weapon types I also would suggest that the ability of PW infantry to outlast the enemy is often valuable, for example when your transport capacity is small enough that you require multiple waves of combat drops to land all of your forces then you may want your first waves to survive longer and then support the following waves. Longer-lasting front line formations are also essential for maximizing the effect of artillery and other force multipliers if you choose to use these which I think most players who do not cheese everything with SHV/UHV do because big guns that explode things are fun.
It is trust me... I have run the numbers...
100 CAP infantry = 240 PW infantry
I will assume 10% hits per turn just for sake of the demonstration...
Turn 1
100 CAP = 600 shots
240 PW = 240 shots
CAP kill 25% and the PW only kill 24%... so it spirals from there...
Turn 2
76 CAP = 456 shots
180 PW = 180 shots
Turn 3
58 CAP = 348 shots
134 PW = 134 shots
CAP have received 42% losses and the PW have received 48% losses....
You are better to use the tanks to soak damage from the CAP infantry than other infantry so you can kill the enemy infantry faster. The amount of anti-vehicle weapons is almost insignificant in the overall picture against NPR forces for this purpose, they rarely have enough to make this important anyway. The important way is to have their infantry target your tanks and not your infantry. Some people would probably argue that an all medium tank army is all you need, but I think a combination of tanks and CAP infantry is the best at the end of the day, the CAP deliver more infantry killing power per ton shipped as well.
For boarding it is different as you can often use PWL weapons not PW weapons, so it is different. But that is only against NPR which don't have security forces on their ships... right?!?
-
In terms of bombardment you can build specific bombardment cruisers and use either reduced sized lasers or rail-guns, doesn't matter which. Don't use too large weapons as your intention with indiscriminate bombardment is to cause as little collateral damage as possible and you want to eliminate infantry anyway. Just cram as many cheap lasers or rail-guns in them as possible and you will keep your MSP cost down to the bare minimum.
You can have them do both indiscriminate bombardment and precision bombardment as well... no need to choose between the two.
Don't use your regular ship for indiscriminate bombardment, that is just too expensive and will not produce a good result.
-
How do I know how long it will take for my troops to land (without drop capsules, in a simple way)?
What landing speed should I aim for?
As far as I understand, I need to first move my entire army to the system closest to NPR, and then, as soon as a battle begins in the enemy's system, quickly transport the entire army to the nearest to the main enemy planet in order to quickly organize an invasion from there.
-
How do I know how long it will take for my troops to land (without drop capsules, in a simple way)?
What landing speed should I aim for?
As far as I understand, I need to first move my entire army to the system closest to NPR, and then, as soon as a battle begins in the enemy's system, quickly transport the entire army to the nearest to the main enemy planet in order to quickly organize an invasion from there.
You should use drop capable transports if you do this and have allot of Cargo Handling systems on them to reduce the time it takes to load the troops.
If you do the other route you just load up ALL the troops into one large transport fleet and the time it takes to unload them does not really matter as you have secured the orbit of the planet before hand.
In my opinion it is more economically viable to invade home worlds with cheap transports that can take one 10 million army in one go rather than one drop capable fleet that take them in chunks of perhaps a few million at a time. The latter can cause huge problems and depends on that there is a world close by to stage an invasion, the first options really don't.
I usually maintain capabilities in both so I have some options. Perhaps 500.000 to 1.000.000 in dropping some elite forces and then whatever capability I need to drop a large multi-million force against large populated colonies.
When you look at the cost of a cheap transport versus a capable assault transport the cost of the latter usually are about 4-5 times the cost... it also produce more cost over time as you will feel inclined to replace them as you develop better armour, CIWS and engine technology. The regular transports you really don't need to upgrade very often as whatever mission they perform are very rarely time sensitive or need any armour what so ever.
To give some perspective in cost... a cheap transport usually cost about half of what the troops they carry cost while an assault carrier usually are about the same cost as the elite forces they carry, especially as those elite forces are much more expensive than my regular army forces is. You don't want to build 10 million elite forces, that is super expensive and will take a huge time to build and require a stupendous amount of ground force construction capabilities, probably better used for other purposes. Also think about all the upgrades you need to do to make them still relevant as well.
You can go with whatever doctrine you like, as long as you look at the costs and decide if the benefit or drawbacks are worth it.
-
To give some perspective in cost... a cheap transport usually cost about half of what the troops they carry cost while an assault carrier usually are about the same cost as the elite forces they carry, especially as those elite forces are much more expensive than my regular army forces is. You don't want to build 10 million elite forces, that is super expensive and will take a huge time to build and require a stupendous amount of ground force construction capabilities, probably better used for other purposes. Also think about all the upgrades you need to do to make them still relevant as well.
You can go with whatever doctrine you like, as long as you look at the costs and decide if the benefit or drawbacks are worth it.
I totally agree that it makes more sense to use large, cheap, simple transports.
My question is how much do I need compared to the size of my army ...
Let's say I create an army of 3 million. And transports - for 1 million people. I will transport (after victory in space) the entire army to the planet or even the moon closest to the enemy ... And then I will start to land 1 million people. How much of a problem will be the time of the direct disembarkation and landing of troops from transports?
-
To give some perspective in cost... a cheap transport usually cost about half of what the troops they carry cost while an assault carrier usually are about the same cost as the elite forces they carry, especially as those elite forces are much more expensive than my regular army forces is. You don't want to build 10 million elite forces, that is super expensive and will take a huge time to build and require a stupendous amount of ground force construction capabilities, probably better used for other purposes. Also think about all the upgrades you need to do to make them still relevant as well.
You can go with whatever doctrine you like, as long as you look at the costs and decide if the benefit or drawbacks are worth it.
I totally agree that it makes more sense to use large, cheap, simple transports.
My question is how much do I need compared to the size of my army ...
Let's say I create an army of 3 million. And transports - for 1 million people. I will transport (after victory in space) the entire army to the planet or even the moon closest to the enemy ... And then I will start to land 1 million people. How much of a problem will be the time of the direct disembarkation and landing of troops from transports?
That is what I tried to say... if you use cheap transports you build as many transports as you need to transport all the troops you would ever expect to partake in a single invasion. No need to find a place to stage them from. If you stage troops somewhere you need to use drop capable troop ships. I never would do that for large scale invasions in general.
Loading time is something you will have to test out... it depends on the amount of cargo transport and the size of the transport hold. So it depends... Even for drop capable ships you need allot of cargo handling system to pick up the troops but you will drop the instantly so you cut the time in half for loading/unloading the troops.
As an example it would take me one day to load a 25kt formation onto one of my transport using 4 levels of Cargo Handling... just to give you some estimations.
You probably can optimise thing with Logistic officers and fleets and naval admin commands.
-
As an example it would take me one day to load a 25kt formation onto one of my transport using 4 levels of Cargo Handling... just to give you some estimations.
I can see somewhere in the game how long it will take to fully load my transport ship, as seen with the cargo ship?
-
As an example it would take me one day to load a 25kt formation onto one of my transport using 4 levels of Cargo Handling... just to give you some estimations.
I can see somewhere in the game how long it will take to fully load my transport ship, as seen with the cargo ship?
You will see how long it will take when you do the action... after that you can make a prediction... but since there are modifiers from logistics on the captain and then more for admin commands and it becomes a bit more complicated... but it should give you a general guideline for how long it will take.
From my example above I can guesstimate that it will take roughly 4 hours per 1000t with a level 1 Cargo Handling system... also note the your Spaceport or Cargo Handling Station also count as en extra Cargo Handling system if present. So a ship with Cargo Handling of 3 will count as 4 while on a Station, this is why many small cargo transport ships generally is marginally better for transfer than a single large ship, large ships obviously have other benefit. In general large cargo ships for long hauls and small ones for short trips is beneficial.
So... if a ship would load 20000 tons worth of troops it would take 4*20=80 hours to load the ship with a single Cargo Handling system at level 1, 40 hours if you are at a Space port since you simply divide the number of hours with the level of Cargo Handling system that you have, so at a total level of four that would be 20 hours.
You probably can test this yourself and find out if my calculations are correct. I also noted that the LOG admin command don't seem to pass on the Logistics if the admiral as the one I tested with had a 50% logistics bonus and if I moved the troop ship fleet to a command with no bonus it took the exact same time to load the troops... that is a bummer, probably a bug. I have not tested if it also is the same with cargo ships, but for troop ships it seems to not transfer anyway.
-
As an example it would take me one day to load a 25kt formation onto one of my transport using 4 levels of Cargo Handling... just to give you some estimations.
I can see somewhere in the game how long it will take to fully load my transport ship, as seen with the cargo ship?
You will see how long it will take when you do the action... after that you can make a prediction... but since there are modifiers from logistics on the captain and then more for admin commands and it becomes a bit more complicated... but it should give you a general guideline for how long it will take.
You don't need to make a prediction, the game tells you at the top the class design screen next to the ship build time. The load time is updated based on the no. of cargo shuttle bays you put on your ship. The only thing it doesn't account for is the presence of spaceports but suffice to say the enemy spaceport won't help when your unloading troops onto a hostile world.
Example: My 50kt capacity transport with shuttle rating of 60 displays a load time of "00:00:27" which is 27 minutes to load/unload 50kt of troops.
-
As an example it would take me one day to load a 25kt formation onto one of my transport using 4 levels of Cargo Handling... just to give you some estimations.
I can see somewhere in the game how long it will take to fully load my transport ship, as seen with the cargo ship?
You will see how long it will take when you do the action... after that you can make a prediction... but since there are modifiers from logistics on the captain and then more for admin commands and it becomes a bit more complicated... but it should give you a general guideline for how long it will take.
You don't need to make a prediction, the game tells you at the top the class design screen next to the ship build time. The load time is updated based on the no. of cargo shuttle bays you put on your ship. The only thing it doesn't account for is the presence of spaceports but suffice to say the enemy spaceport won't help when your unloading troops onto a hostile world.
Example: My 50kt capacity transport with shuttle rating of 60 displays a load time of "00:00:27" which is 27 minutes to load/unload 50kt of troops.
Yeah... that is right... I forgot that you see it there... good call.
How many Cargo Handling facilities do a ship have for 60 rating?!? if it is the starting one that would be like 30.000 tons or 1200 BP for just the handling system... I assume this is a high tech system on that ship, the max tech you can get 60 for 3000t or 240BP so not too big of a deal I guess.
I also get 55min for 50kt troop capacity and 27min for 25kt troops (60 handling rate)... did you mean 25kt troops or am I doing something wrong?
-
As an example it would take me one day to load a 25kt formation onto one of my transport using 4 levels of Cargo Handling... just to give you some estimations.
I can see somewhere in the game how long it will take to fully load my transport ship, as seen with the cargo ship?
You will see how long it will take when you do the action... after that you can make a prediction... but since there are modifiers from logistics on the captain and then more for admin commands and it becomes a bit more complicated... but it should give you a general guideline for how long it will take.
You don't need to make a prediction, the game tells you at the top the class design screen next to the ship build time. The load time is updated based on the no. of cargo shuttle bays you put on your ship. The only thing it doesn't account for is the presence of spaceports but suffice to say the enemy spaceport won't help when your unloading troops onto a hostile world.
Example: My 50kt capacity transport with shuttle rating of 60 displays a load time of "00:00:27" which is 27 minutes to load/unload 50kt of troops.
Yeah... that is right... I forgot that you see it there... good call.
How many Cargo Handling facilities do a ship have for 60 rating?!? if it is the starting one that would be like 30.000 tons or 1200 BP for just the handling system... I assume this is a high tech system on that ship, the max tech you can get 60 for 3000t or 240BP so not too big of a deal I guess.
I also get 55min for 50kt troop capacity and 27min for 25kt troops (60 handling rate)... did you mean 25kt troops or am I doing something wrong?
The example ship I gave has 6 cargo shuttle bays so I get 10 rating each which is max tech. I have no idea why there is a discrepancy been your and my load times though I'm literally looking at the game as I write this and it very clearly says 27 minutes to load 50kt of troops. I have a drop capable transport with 50kt capacity but 30 cargo handling and that takes 55 minutes though.
-
As an example it would take me one day to load a 25kt formation onto one of my transport using 4 levels of Cargo Handling... just to give you some estimations.
I can see somewhere in the game how long it will take to fully load my transport ship, as seen with the cargo ship?
You will see how long it will take when you do the action... after that you can make a prediction... but since there are modifiers from logistics on the captain and then more for admin commands and it becomes a bit more complicated... but it should give you a general guideline for how long it will take.
You don't need to make a prediction, the game tells you at the top the class design screen next to the ship build time. The load time is updated based on the no. of cargo shuttle bays you put on your ship. The only thing it doesn't account for is the presence of spaceports but suffice to say the enemy spaceport won't help when your unloading troops onto a hostile world.
Example: My 50kt capacity transport with shuttle rating of 60 displays a load time of "00:00:27" which is 27 minutes to load/unload 50kt of troops.
Yeah... that is right... I forgot that you see it there... good call.
How many Cargo Handling facilities do a ship have for 60 rating?!? if it is the starting one that would be like 30.000 tons or 1200 BP for just the handling system... I assume this is a high tech system on that ship, the max tech you can get 60 for 3000t or 240BP so not too big of a deal I guess.
I also get 55min for 50kt troop capacity and 27min for 25kt troops (60 handling rate)... did you mean 25kt troops or am I doing something wrong?
The example ship I gave has 6 cargo shuttle bays so I get 10 rating each which is max tech. I have no idea why there is a discrepancy been your and my load times though I'm literally looking at the game as I write this and it very clearly says 27 minutes to load 50kt of troops. I have a drop capable transport with 50kt capacity but 30 cargo handling and that takes 55 minutes though.
That is odd... I only get the Advanced Cargo Handling system at level 5 as max tech at 40kRP and with 60 handling levels I seem to not get the same as you... what version are you running. I'm at 1.13 currently when I tried this?
-
That is odd... I only get the Advanced Cargo Handling system at level 5 as max tech at 40kRP and with 60 handling levels I seem to not get the same as you... what version are you running. I'm at 1.13 currently when I tried this?
Sounds like DB modding?
-
That is odd... I only get the Advanced Cargo Handling system at level 5 as max tech at 40kRP and with 60 handling levels I seem to not get the same as you... what version are you running. I'm at 1.13 currently when I tried this?
Sounds like DB modding?
I just downloaded a fresh DB just to be sure... and it is the same. I have modded the DB but not that part. The fresh DB is the same. Max tech is 40kRP and 27min for 60 handling for 25k troop capacity. Max tech cargo handling is 5 in this game too.
-
I meant DB modding on Droll's part. I'm sure I remember both of you do a lot of DB modding especially for techs and components.
-
4 divisions have already been created ... out of the probably needed 100 :)
How much benefit will I get from conquering the enemy world, compared to destroying it? :)
1. Do I understand correctly that if I conquer the enemy world without bombing, then all (or almost all) of the population, industry and shipyards will go to me?
2. Can I somehow effectively estimate the number of enemy troops on the planet before the landing?
3. If I have a certain (sufficiently large) number of destroyers armed, for example, with railguns - how effectively will they be able to reduce the size of the army required for a successful invasion?
And how badly will the built on the planet suffer?
4. What happens to NPR after the conquest of all of its planets? Will commercial ships remain flying in space forever (until someone else destroys them)?
P.S. WIKI C# :
"Each component of the forward direction of fire (FFD) in the formation allows you to support from one ship in orbit or up to six ground support fighters."
I understand correctly that I need to add these components to my divisions if I want my divisions to allow ships in orbit of the planet to participate in orbital support for troops?
-
4 divisions have already been created ... out of the probably needed 100 :)
How much benefit will I get from conquering the enemy world, compared to destroying it? :)
1. Do I understand correctly that if I conquer the enemy world without bombing, then all (or almost all) of the population, industry and shipyards will go to me?
The conquest process will likely cause substantial losses due to collateral damage - more so if you have a lot of artillery or orbital support, but whatever is left after conquest will be under your control
2. Can I somehow effectively estimate the number of enemy troops on the planet before the landing?
Sensors will give an estimate of the size in tons of ground troops present, multiply this by 6 as most will be fortified to the maximum extent possible. You dont get any info on the types and capabilities of the defenders until combat actually starts and initially this can have a large error margin (it gets better as combat continues)
3. If I have a certain (sufficiently large) number of destroyers armed, for example, with railguns - how effectively will they be able to reduce the size of the army required for a successful invasion?
And how badly will the built on the planet suffer?
Poorly and badly. Chances to hit Defending units from orbit are usually in the (low) single figure %age, and collateral damage and dust/radiation impacts build up quite quickly
4. What happens to NPR after the conquest of all of its planets? Will commercial ships remain flying in space forever (until someone else destroys them)?
The race record remain in the database, but all CIV units will surrender & return to homeworld. MIL units can continue to operate for a time. I have often seem that there can be small colonies in other systems which prevent final surrender tho
-
While I am here discussing how I will conduct conquests, I was suddenly attacked, despite the fact that I am not yet ready for war at all.
My distant colony from 250 automatic mines rained fire from a variety of energy weapons.
The worst thing about this is that it turns out that those 50 ships in their home system, with a tonnage of 22 thousand tons, turned out to be military.
If they now arrive with their entire fleet, I will not be able to defend myself. And I built a big network of jump gates, so it's not difficult for them.
The only positive result is that I got some intelligence on their energy weapons.
Until now, I do not have a single ship with large active sensors. just researched them and start building ... The intrigue is growing! :)
-
Something clearly went wrong with me.
I destroyed most of the enemy fleet, and decided to start conquering the enemy planet. I deployed my entire fleet near the planet, discovered 12,500 tons of STO. After checking that if I get closer to the planet, huge firepower will fall on me, I began to fire at these STO missiles.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the effectiveness of this shelling is extremely low!
I spent all my missiles - in total over 1000 missiles with warheads 16 and 25, and achieved the fact that STO decreased from only 12,500 tons to 7800 tons. Having tried to approach the planet again, I was again very powerfully attacked, and also discovered another 5000 tons of STO.
At the same time, judging by the change in the electromagnetic readings of the planet, a third of the enemy population was destroyed. Those. even if I destroy all STOs in this way, most of the population and industry will also be destroyed ...
Is there some other way to conquer the planet, without spending thousands of rockets, and destroying most of the population and industry?
-
Beam weapons.
I guess you could also try to use very heavily armored drop-capable transports to land a lot of ground forces and have them eventually kill the STOs, but this is kind of risky especially if you will need multiple drop waves and will likely lose some transports in following waves.
-
Beam weapons.
I guess you could also try to use very heavily armored drop-capable transports to land a lot of ground forces and have them eventually kill the STOs, but this is kind of risky especially if you will need multiple drop waves and will likely lose some transports in following waves.
And how much is needed for this purpose?
I read Wikipedia, and I realized that an attack from orbit of these STOs is still quite ineffective, and leading to large accompanying casualties. I believe the only correct option would be to create powerful armored transports with the ability to immediately drop.
In fact, the situation is quite realistic: it is much easier to create a powerful weapon on the planet than on a spaceship, and on the planet it can be hidden and distributed in such a way that it cannot be quickly destroyed.
But maybe there are some other ways?
It is a pity that I have no fighters, one could try to assign them a special mission.
-
It is a pity that I have no fighters, one could try to assign them a special mission.
I can assure you it is no pity. Given the micromanagement required to field any good number of fighters and the ease at which they get shot down by the 10000s of AA units on the planet, fighters are barely effective at ground combat let alone with STOs.
-
I can assure you it is no pity. Given the micromanagement required to field any good number of fighters and the ease at which they get shot down by the 10000s of AA units on the planet, fighters are barely effective at ground combat let alone with STOs.
Thanks!
And what will be more effective ?:
Transport ships with the possibility of a mass landing through the dropping of troops, or two huge armored battleships of 60,000 tonnage each?
And what is the best way to arm ships aimed at destroying defenses? I suppose plasma carronades are not the best choice? Will they inflict a lot of unnecessary losses, or not?
If so, would a lot (a lot!) Weapons with 1 damage be better? Or do you need more damage?
What does an ideal ship for STO destruction look like (besides having a LOT of armor)?)
-
A good rule of thumb is to do a bit of back-of-envelope math:
- Some tonnage of STOs is present.
- The STOs are fortified to level 3 at least, probably level 6 as there are some construction units on the planet. So the detected tonnage is only about 1/6 of the actual tonnage.
- STOs are probably about 3x as "efficient" as a ship. That is, STOs can pack roughly 3x as much firepower into a given tonnage compared to a ship that needs to have armor, engines, etc. So, to match the STOs on the planet you need at least 3x the tonnage in ships (now we are up to a net 18x multiplier of the displayed tonnage.
- You probably want 2x or even 3x advantage in tonnage to ensure that you come out with a victory as a rule of thumb.
So if you detect some ~18k tons of STOs, likely you would be wanting some 3/4-million tons of ships to actually bombard the planet with beam weapons.
However, there are a couple of caveats that can reduce the requirement. First, ships firing at a planet surface deal full beam weapon damage regardless of the range and suffer no range-based accuracy loss, so you can fire from extreme range with full effectiveness while the STOs suffer from range-based accuracy and damage penalties. Second, it is possible to simply tech up and outrange the STOs directly; this is easiest to do with lasers but can also be done with particle beams or even with railguns at mid to high tech levels. If you take advantage of these facts, you can reduce the requirement for eliminating the planetary STOs by quite a lot. In fact if you outrange them, you can in theory eventually knock out the STOs with a single spinal laser FAC and a supply ship to resupply MSP every few hundred shots, but this would take a long time so I advise dedicating a little bit more tonnage to solve this problem. ;)
Since the unique characteristics of beam weapons are usually not relevant (e.g., particle beam damage falloff is unimportant, meson armor attenuation doesn't matter, etc.) lasers are probably the best weapon for planetary bombardment.
The problem with the armored drop transport plan is that you are guaranteed to take a lot of damage from STOs and potentially even lose some transports and maybe troops. However this may be worth it if you want to preserve as much planetary industry and population as possible - especially in v2.0 which will reduce collateral damage from ground combat by 80%. The other problem is that you need to have drop transport capability of several million tons, or else plan to send multiple waves of troops which exposes you to even more potential losses. If you eliminate STOs from orbit you gain the benefit of using unarmored transports which can be built more cheaply and thus you can have a lot more of them.
-
So if you detect some ~18k tons of STOs, likely you would be wanting some 3/4-million tons of ships to actually bombard the planet with beam weapons.
However, there are a couple of caveats that can reduce the requirement. First, ships firing at a planet surface deal full beam weapon damage regardless of the range and suffer no range-based accuracy loss, so you can fire from extreme range with full effectiveness while the STOs suffer from range-based accuracy and damage penalties. Second, it is possible to simply tech up and outrange the STOs directly; this is easiest to do with lasers but can also be done with particle beams or even with railguns at mid to high tech levels. If you take advantage of these facts, you can reduce the requirement for eliminating the planetary STOs by quite a lot. In fact if you outrange them, you can in theory eventually knock out the STOs with a single spinal laser FAC and a supply ship to resupply MSP every few hundred shots, but this would take a long time so I advise dedicating a little bit more tonnage to solve this problem. ;)
HM. 3/4 million ships armed with beam weapons to attack STO? Yes, I will build this for 10 years, and while I produce it, the enemy will build 100 tons of STO :)
I have a question about the effectiveness of the fight against STO:
1. What kind of weapons should be placed on ships in order to
A) Be effective against STOs?
B) Inflict minimal damage to the industry?
Could these be lasers 1-10cm in size? Or something more powerful is better?
2. How much will the landing of the troops with the aiming ability help? Perhaps to land a small contingent to help direct the space orbital bombardment?
3. If the attack distance of enemy STOs is 100 thousand km, can I create weapons (lasers or railguns ...) with an effective range of 120-150 thousand km, and shoot enemy STOs from a safe distance?
Thus, one ship is enough for me, and I do not need a fleet of almost a million tonnage. I'm right? Or is there some reason why this is a bad idea?
4. Does firing distance (and accuracy / hit probability) affect collateral damage? I would not want to destroy everything on the planet ...
5. What is the alternative? Given the time and industrial resources required to carry out a successful invasion ... is it perhaps easier to carry out an Exterminatus in the spirit of Warhammer 40,000? :)
-
So if you detect some ~18k tons of STOs, likely you would be wanting some 3/4-million tons of ships to actually bombard the planet with beam weapons.
However, there are a couple of caveats that can reduce the requirement. First, ships firing at a planet surface deal full beam weapon damage regardless of the range and suffer no range-based accuracy loss, so you can fire from extreme range with full effectiveness while the STOs suffer from range-based accuracy and damage penalties. Second, it is possible to simply tech up and outrange the STOs directly; this is easiest to do with lasers but can also be done with particle beams or even with railguns at mid to high tech levels. If you take advantage of these facts, you can reduce the requirement for eliminating the planetary STOs by quite a lot. In fact if you outrange them, you can in theory eventually knock out the STOs with a single spinal laser FAC and a supply ship to resupply MSP every few hundred shots, but this would take a long time so I advise dedicating a little bit more tonnage to solve this problem. ;)
HM. 3/4 million ships armed with beam weapons to attack STO? Yes, I will build this for 10 years, and while I produce it, the enemy will build 100 tons of STO :)
I have a question about the effectiveness of the fight against STO:
1. What kind of weapons should be placed on ships in order to
A) Be effective against STOs?
B) Inflict minimal damage to the industry?
Could these be lasers 1-10cm in size? Or something more powerful is better?
2. How much will the landing of the troops with the aiming ability help? Perhaps to land a small contingent to help direct the space orbital bombardment?
3. If the attack distance of enemy STOs is 100 thousand km, can I create weapons (lasers or railguns ...) with an effective range of 120-150 thousand km, and shoot enemy STOs from a safe distance?
Thus, one ship is enough for me, and I do not need a fleet of almost a million tonnage. I'm right? Or is there some reason why this is a bad idea?
4. Does firing distance (and accuracy / hit probability) affect collateral damage? I would not want to destroy everything on the planet ...
5. What is the alternative? Given the time and industrial resources required to carry out a successful invasion ... is it perhaps easier to carry out an Exterminatus in the spirit of Warhammer 40,000? :)
My most effective bombardment ships have been medium caliber high shot-count ships. For me these are light cruisers usually armed with 15cm-20cm main batteries firing every 5 secs. Railguns are ideal for this as 20-25cm will do enough damage to reliably go past static armor while giving you very large shot counts.
High shot count is king. It's also why gauss PD ships will usually do well by pure volume of fire. But they will cause more collateral than the lasers due to shots wasted from non-penetrations and many more misses (esp. if using reduced size gauss).
-
My most effective bombardment ships have been medium caliber high shot-count ships. For me these are light cruisers usually armed with 15cm-20cm main batteries firing every 5 secs. Railguns are ideal for this as 20-25cm will do enough damage to reliably go past static armor while giving you very large shot counts.
High shot count is king. It's also why gauss PD ships will usually do well by pure volume of fire. But they will cause more collateral than the lasers due to shots wasted from non-penetrations and many more misses (esp. if using reduced size gauss).
So 15-20cm or 20-25cm is better? :)
Would I love to read about STO damage mechanics and industry collateral damage? I did not find it on wikipedia
If I shoot with a larger caliber, will the probability and magnitude of industrial / population damage increase?
Is there any reason not to use 10cm lasers or railguns?
-
Would I love to read about STO damage mechanics and industry collateral damage? I did not find it on wikipedia
It is here. (http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=C-Ground_Combat#Space_to_Ground_.26_Ground_to_Space_Combat)
If I shoot with a larger caliber, will the probability and magnitude of industrial / population damage increase?
Is there any reason not to use 10cm lasers or railguns?
As indicated in the link, beam weapons do 10*damage in penetration and 20*damage in actual damage, so you want to use a weapon which is strong enough to reliably kill STOs (which typically use the 1-armor static base type which has 3 base HP - remember that armor and HP are multiplied by the racial armor tech level). This means that a 10cm railgun targeting STOs from a race with Ceramic Composite Armour (strength 10) will have a 10 pentration, 20 damage profile and thus a (10/10)^2 * (20/30)^2 = 44% chance to kill a STO with each hit. This is probably acceptable given the high rate of fire you can achieve. A 10cm laser on the other hand will have something like 17/34 profile and will destroy a STO with every hit scored, but with lower rate of fire meaning you will receive more fire from the STOs in the process. So 10cm weapons are fine in terms of damage at low to mid tech levels.
Thus, the big reason not to use low-caliber weapons is the short range which puts you much closer to the STOs and you will take a lot more damage. Using a 15cm laser or 20/25 cm railguns allows you to hang back a bit while the STOs take low-percentage shots (especially if you have ECM, they may not even be able to hit you at long range) and score reduced damage when they do hit you due to the damage falloff of lasers, railguns, etc.
-
Thus, the big reason not to use low-caliber weapons is the short range which puts you much closer to the STOs and you will take a lot more damage. Using a 15cm laser or 20/25 cm railguns allows you to hang back a bit while the STOs take low-percentage shots (especially if you have ECM, they may not even be able to hit you at long range) and score reduced damage when they do hit you due to the damage falloff of lasers, railguns, etc.
Good, thank you very much!)
The only thing left is not clear - my questions are above:
3. If the attack distance of enemy STOs is 100 thousand km, can I create weapons (lasers or railguns ...) with an effective range of 120-150 thousand km, and shoot enemy STOs from a safe distance?
Thus, one ship is enough for me, because the enemy will not be able to reach me. And you don't need a fleet of almost a million tonnage. I'm right? Or is there some reason why this is a bad idea?
4. Does firing distance (and accuracy / hit probability) affect collateral damage? I would not want to destroy everything on the planet ...
-
3. If the attack distance of enemy STOs is 100 thousand km, can I create weapons (lasers or railguns ...) with an effective range of 120-150 thousand km, and shoot enemy STOs from a safe distance?
Thus, one ship is enough for me, because the enemy will not be able to reach me. And you don't need a fleet of almost a million tonnage. I'm right? Or is there some reason why this is a bad idea?
If you can do it you should. It is not always possible unless you are very patient and will wait to develop the needed tech.
Note that STOs get a 25% bonus to range so you may need multiple levels of tech to exceed their range.
4. Does firing distance (and accuracy / hit probability) affect collateral damage? I would not want to destroy everything on the planet ...
No. Ships firing at ground targets have no accuracy modifier from range to target. Accuracy is determined from the base hit chance and the fortification level of the target only.
-
If you can do it you should. It is not always possible unless you are very patient and will wait to develop the needed tech.
Note that STOs get a 25% bonus to range so you may need multiple levels of tech to exceed their range.
I guess researching multiple levels of technology is faster than producing a fleet of almost a million tons to take on the armor of an enemy STO :)
No. Ships firing at ground targets have no accuracy modifier from range to target. Accuracy is determined from the base hit chance and the fortification level of the target only.
My question is, will the "misses" be detrimental to the population and industry? Or will it be just misses "past the planet"?
Depending on this, I will design weapons with either a close to 80-90% chance of hitting the enemy, or less.
-
Thus, the big reason not to use low-caliber weapons is the short range which puts you much closer to the STOs and you will take a lot more damage. Using a 15cm laser or 20/25 cm railguns allows you to hang back a bit while the STOs take low-percentage shots (especially if you have ECM, they may not even be able to hit you at long range) and score reduced damage when they do hit you due to the damage falloff of lasers, railguns, etc.
Good, thank you very much!)
The only thing left is not clear - my questions are above:
3. If the attack distance of enemy STOs is 100 thousand km, can I create weapons (lasers or railguns ...) with an effective range of 120-150 thousand km, and shoot enemy STOs from a safe distance?
Thus, one ship is enough for me, because the enemy will not be able to reach me. And you don't need a fleet of almost a million tonnage. I'm right? Or is there some reason why this is a bad idea?
4. Does firing distance (and accuracy / hit probability) affect collateral damage? I would not want to destroy everything on the planet ...
For point 3, yes - but this is harder than it sounds because STO fire controls actually get a range boost vs. ship borne variants, which means that for beam fire controls to outrange equivalent STO beam fire controls you are going to pay a premium for it in uridium.
For 4, firing distance has no effect as far as collateral is concerned. Your ships are firing at a planet, they won't miss the planet. The main driver of bombardment collateral damage is enemy fortification/planetary terrain and largely out of your control aside from your weapon of choice. The more defensive the enemy terrain, the more collateral you will have due to shots missing the STOs and hitting something else planet-side. So choose weapons that are big enough to reliably penetrate and destroy enemy STOs when they do hit but no more than that, make the on target shots count.
Another thing to note is that STO fleet beam exchanges are dps challenges. As far as defense is considered, shields are an excellent choice on your ships as they will regenerate during the fighting. Especially relevant if you are pushing the max range of enemy STOs. Shields also let you disengage for a hot minute and recharge to full before re-engaging. It's not like the planet can run away.
-
For point 3, yes - but this is harder than it sounds because STO fire controls actually get a range boost vs. ship borne variants, which means that for beam fire controls to outrange equivalent STO beam fire controls you are going to pay a premium for it in uridium.
Oh, by the way, about the fire controls!
Is one fire control enough for me to fight STO effectively?
Will one fire control device fire multiple STOs at a time? Or would the ship then aim all of its cannons at one STO, which is guaranteed to be destroyed, and the rest of the damage from multiple rounds spread across the industry and population?
-
For point 3, yes - but this is harder than it sounds because STO fire controls actually get a range boost vs. ship borne variants, which means that for beam fire controls to outrange equivalent STO beam fire controls you are going to pay a premium for it in uridium.
Oh, by the way, about the fire controls!
Is one fire control enough for me to fight STO effectively?
Will one fire control device fire multiple STOs at a time? Or would the ship then aim all of its cannons at one STO, which is guaranteed to be destroyed, and the rest of the damage from multiple rounds spread across the industry and population?
Aside from damage related redundancies you only need one BFC to target all STOs.
The way it works is that there is a separate STO ground contact on the relevant body and you assign that as the target of your fire controls. When providing orbital support ships will typically target elements. So your ships will randomly target all of one type of STO. NPRs typically only have 2 types of STO - point defence, anti-ship. If your ships land multiple hits, they will potentially destroy multiple of the targeted type. When the kill reports come in you'll notice a mix of STO-PD and STO kills for this reason.
-
1x STA+HQ25
3000x INF+PW
300x INF+CAP
150x INF+LAV
100x INF+LB
186x INF+LOG-S
As I understand it, one of the main advantages of this division is its cheapness, due to the 3000 INF + PW in it.
Suppose I have enough resources / buildings so that the division does not have a problem, and there was a new goal - the most powerful division for its size (tonnage)?
At the same time, the price is of secondary importance.
What can be done?
Apart from the obvious - replace PW with CAP? (by the way, how much does that make sense?)
-
1x STA+HQ25
3000x INF+PW
300x INF+CAP
150x INF+LAV
100x INF+LB
186x INF+LOG-S
As I understand it, one of the main advantages of this division is its cheapness, due to the 3000 INF + PW in it.
Suppose I have enough resources / buildings so that the division does not have a problem, and there was a new goal - the most powerful division for its size (tonnage)?
At the same time, the price is of secondary importance.
What can be done?
Keep in mind that "price" is not always the big limitation, building time is also a significant consideration. You can have a formation that costs 4x the above, but it will take 4x longer to build as you cannot accelerate the process by using multiple training centers (unless you train the regiment as a set of smaller formations and manually combine them later). If you want to amass a large army quickly, infantry is the way to go.
If you already have plenty of infantry and you do have the freedom to start building some heavier units, there are a few options. VEH with 4 armor are your basic armored units, you can research bigger and better but this is not necessary. As Jorgen suggests, VEH+2xCAP are very good infantry killers. Many players use a VEH+MAV+CAP "main battle tank" design, however this has the disadvantage that MAV is very expensive in supply usage and is wasted if it shoots mostly at infantry. I would suggest using only limited MAV tanks with an equal or greater number of 2xCAP tanks. Another option is to eschew MAV and use MAC instead, it is a bit more supply-hungry (18 GSP vs 14 for MAV) but with three shots it is much better against infantry and will still perform acceptably against armored targets.
The other option to expand your forces is to start using higher-HQ formations which can contain artillery units, resupply units, and if you have developed them construction vehicles which can fortify your infantry and artillery to a higher level. These don't have to be much more expensive than the infantry, but once you have a lot of infantry artillery acts as a significant force multiplier since the enemy will struggle to target your heavy guns due to all the front-line infantry in the way. Think WWI tactics or perhaps more familiar would be the Imperial Guard in WH40K.
If you want to be cheesy and keep it simple, a mass of INF+PW supported by VEH+2xCAP and STA+MB formations (with the necessary logistics units somewhere in your OOB) will be good enough to beat any infantry-heavy NPR armies you run across. It is a bit weak against armor but once you have mowed down the enemy infantry you can win by weight of fire. Of course this assumes you have the two most important advantages...technology, and numbers!
Apart from the obvious - replace PW with CAP? (by the way, how much does that make sense?)
It can make sense... personally I would not do it, both for RP reasons and because I feel PW strikes a good balance of offense, defense, and meatshield ability to protect the tanks or artillery. Jorgen has pointed out that in terms of killing infantry, INF+CAP are a bit better than INF+PW, however I think once you start to consider other weapon types and unit types a healthy mass of INF+PW is a good thing to have.
That being said, it is not of great importance how you compose your forces. Numbers/tonnage and tech level are the most important factors by far in winning a ground battle.