Author Topic: C# Ground Forces Composition  (Read 2318 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2018, 03:19:33 PM »
I think it's more that the light anti-vehicle is just in an awkward position. 60 damage is inefficiently high for anything short of a heavy vehicle, but the armor penetration on it is too low to be efficient at such big targets. So I agree the HCAP is probably a better choice for most roles, since it's 6x as good against infantry, 2x as good against static and light vehicles, and just as good against heavy+ vehicles for only 4 more size.

OTOH, because the anti-vehicle option for infantry is in a not great spot, it means exclusively infantry armies will have a glaring weakness, which I think may be a good thing. If the LAV were, say, 30 AP 40 damage than infantry would be much better positioned to deal with medium and even heavy vehicles, whereas with the current weapons they're probably going to wait their own vehicle or static support for dealing with heavily armored units.

Also remember that we probably shouldn't always assume equal tech when comparing weapons. It doesn't help the LAV much but a lot of weapons will perform better when the enemy armor might be higher or lower than the yours.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 796
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2018, 03:22:13 PM »
I looked a bit at the HCAP, and it seems to be one of the better weapons overall, probably a bit too good.
LAV is completely outclassed by HCAP. They have the same AP, the same total amount of damage. The only advantage of LAV is that it is 20% smaller, but that is directly offset that even a medium vehicle has only 40 HP, so you loose 33% of your damage output on overkill if you hit a medium tank. For anything lighter the overkill is even more significant, making HCAP the superior weapon even against light vehicles, which is exactly where LAV should shine.

Similarly, a 32 ton light vehicle with HCAP can destroy 2 light vehicles (60dmg vs 30HP each), while the 28 ton light LAV armed vehicle is completely outclassed, only able to destroy a single opponent per round, and doing obviously much worse against infantry.

There seems to be too little a gap in armor between anti-infantry and anti-armor.

For infantry in general I don't see any reason why you would use Crew Served Weapons at all. Just bringing more infantry cost less and give more firepower and less size. Unless there is something about the game logic that I don't understand

One light CSW has a size of 12, the same as twelve soldiers armed with Personal Weapons. 12 soldiers shoot 12 times and the CSW only 6 times and have the same AP and damage profile, not to mention much harder to kill. They both hove no special abilities in combat from each other, one is just clearly better than the other option.

For the Heavy CSW against the LAV at least one is smaller in size and thus cheaper plus it can instant kill larger vehicles as well even if it will not penetrate its armour every time.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2018, 03:25:40 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2018, 03:23:05 PM »
I looked a bit at the HCAP, and it seems to be one of the better weapons overall, probably a bit too good.
LAV is completely outclassed by HCAP. They have the same AP, the same total amount of damage. The only advantage of LAV is that it is 20% smaller, but that is directly offset that even a medium vehicle has only 40 HP, so you loose 33% of your damage output on overkill if you hit a medium tank. For anything lighter the overkill is even more significant, making HCAP the superior weapon even against light vehicles, which is exactly where LAV should shine.

Similarly, a 32 ton light vehicle with HCAP can destroy 2 light vehicles (60dmg vs 30HP each), while the 28 ton light LAV armed vehicle is completely outclassed, only able to destroy a single opponent per round, and doing obviously much worse against infantry.

There seems to be too little a gap in armor between anti-infantry and anti-armor.

For infantry in general I don't see any reason why you would use Crew Served Weapons at all. Just bringing more infantry cost less and give more firepower and less size. Unless there is something about the game logic that I don't understand

One light CSW has a size of 12, the same as twelve soldiers armed with Personal Weapons. 12 soldiers shoot 12 times and the CSW only 6 times and have the same AP and damage profile. They both hove no special abilities in combat from each other, one is just clearly better than the other option.

For the Heavy CSW against the LAV at least one is smaller in size and thus cheaper plus it can instant kill larger vehicles as well even if it will not penetrate its armour every time.

A soldier with a personal weapon has a size of 5, not 1. I'd say they're pretty well balanced; infantry with personal weapons can absorb more damage, infantry with a CAP has 40% the health but 250% the firepower.

CAP really shine on light vehicles, though, where for 24 size you get a unit that will match really well against unarmored infantry.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2018, 03:26:52 PM by Bremen »
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 796
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #33 on: September 22, 2018, 03:26:40 PM »
I looked a bit at the HCAP, and it seems to be one of the better weapons overall, probably a bit too good.
LAV is completely outclassed by HCAP. They have the same AP, the same total amount of damage. The only advantage of LAV is that it is 20% smaller, but that is directly offset that even a medium vehicle has only 40 HP, so you loose 33% of your damage output on overkill if you hit a medium tank. For anything lighter the overkill is even more significant, making HCAP the superior weapon even against light vehicles, which is exactly where LAV should shine.

Similarly, a 32 ton light vehicle with HCAP can destroy 2 light vehicles (60dmg vs 30HP each), while the 28 ton light LAV armed vehicle is completely outclassed, only able to destroy a single opponent per round, and doing obviously much worse against infantry.

There seems to be too little a gap in armor between anti-infantry and anti-armor.

For infantry in general I don't see any reason why you would use Crew Served Weapons at all. Just bringing more infantry cost less and give more firepower and less size. Unless there is something about the game logic that I don't understand

One light CSW has a size of 12, the same as twelve soldiers armed with Personal Weapons. 12 soldiers shoot 12 times and the CSW only 6 times and have the same AP and damage profile. They both hove no special abilities in combat from each other, one is just clearly better than the other option.

For the Heavy CSW against the LAV at least one is smaller in size and thus cheaper plus it can instant kill larger vehicles as well even if it will not penetrate its armour every time.

A soldier with a personal weapon has a size of 5, not 1. I'd say they're pretty well balanced; infantry with personal weapons can absorb more damage, infantry with a CAP has a third the health but 250% the firepower.

CAP really shine on light vehicles, though, where for 24 size you get a unit that will match really well against unarmored infantry.

Ahh... yes... I was looking at the Supply cost which is 1 for a Personal Weapon..  :)
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 259
  • Thanked: 53 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #34 on: September 22, 2018, 03:32:35 PM »
I think it's more that the light anti-vehicle is just in an awkward position. 60 damage is inefficiently high for anything short of a heavy vehicle, but the armor penetration on it is too low to be efficient at such big targets. So I agree the HCAP is probably a better choice for most roles, since it's 6x as good against infantry, 2x as good against static and light vehicles, and just as good against heavy+ vehicles for only 4 more size.

OTOH, because the anti-vehicle option for infantry is in a not great spot, it means exclusively infantry armies will have a glaring weakness, which I think may be a good thing. If the LAV were, say, 30 AP 40 damage than infantry would be much better positioned to deal with medium and even heavy vehicles, whereas with the current weapons they're probably going to wait their own vehicle or static support for dealing with heavily armored units.

Also remember that we probably shouldn't always assume equal tech when comparing weapons. It doesn't help the LAV much but a lot of weapons will perform better when the enemy armor might be higher or lower than the yours.

Medium and heavy anti vehicle guns suffer from the same overkill issue. Two HCAPs on a medium tank are 70% the size of a Medium with 2 MAV, which suffer 33% overkill against mediums. Against lightly armored medium tanks this means the HCAP outperform the MAVs 2 to 1. Against Medium armor the HCAPs still deal 50% of the damage, and again they retain all their anti-infantry capability.
That just seems overall too good.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 796
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #35 on: September 22, 2018, 03:50:15 PM »
CAP really shine on light vehicles, though, where for 24 size you get a unit that will match really well against unarmored infantry.

I might still be a bit confused on how the combat models work, but as I understand there are no fundamental differences between a tank and a soldiers aside of the stats... there are no manoeuvrability stats or is there?!?

A light vehicle with light vehicle armour and a CAP will have 6 shots at AP 10, damage 10 for size 24, Armour 20 with 30HP at a cost of 48.

five Power Armoured infantry with Personal Weapons will have 5 shots at AP 10, damage 10 for size 25, Armour 20 with 50HP at a cost of 50.

I probably have not read all the ground combat stuff and are missing something.

It seems that vehicles should have allot more HP so they are more durable and some type of other advantage so there are more synergy effect between different types of troops. When you make a combat model and most of it is stats compare against each other you will quickly find the best possible option to use outside the rock/scissor/paper type mechanic which armour and AP generally stand for.

In real life there are reasons for why you have soldiers, APC, artillery and tanks in very similar mixes in all armies across the globe... because it is effective and battlefields are extremely varied no matter where you fight. The thing about reality is that having the right equipment and force at the right place and time is the most crucial part, this is why a smaller more flexible force with better command and communication structure can beat forces way bigger and stronger than themselves.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #36 on: September 22, 2018, 04:05:39 PM »
Medium and heavy anti vehicle guns suffer from the same overkill issue. Two HCAPs on a medium tank are 70% the size of a Medium with 2 MAV, which suffer 33% overkill against mediums. Against lightly armored medium tanks this means the HCAP outperform the MAVs 2 to 1. Against Medium armor the HCAPs still deal 50% of the damage, and again they retain all their anti-infantry capability.
That just seems overall too good.

I'd say MAV is more an anti- heavy vehicle weapon, with the 6 damage. But yes, HCAP is going to perform better against anything with armor 20, that's just how the AP system works. It's like saying the CAP is much better than HCAP since it inflicts nearly twice the damage per size against armor 10.

If you're up against 10 armor, you definitely want CAP. If you're up against 40 armor, you definitely want MAV, and for 60 armor HAV rules the day. HCAP fits fine in that sequence, being ideal for 20 armor targets.

If there's a weapon that I'd say feels like it needs a look, it would be the autocannons. A LAC appears straight up worse than an HCAP in all circumstances (less armor pierce, same total damage in fewer shots, larger size), while MAC and HAC don't compare straight up with their equivalents but still seem much worse; MAC is paying 50% more size and 75% the AP compared to a MAV for the same damage split up into 3 shots, HAC is probably the closest to having its own role (good against medium vehicles, especially if they have a tech advantage) but it's just so heavy.

I might still be a bit confused on how the combat models work, but as I understand there are no fundamental differences between a tank and a soldiers aside of the stats... there are no manoeuvrability stats or is there?!?

A light vehicle with light vehicle armour and a CAP will have 6 shots at AP 10, damage 10 for size 24, Armour 20 with 30HP at a cost of 48.

five Power Armoured infantry with Personal Weapons will have 5 shots at AP 10, damage 10 for size 25, Armour 20 with 50HP at a cost of 50.

Maneuverability is reflected by the hit modifier, which effectively works as "free" fortification when your fortification is low or can't be used, like being on the attack. Light vehicles have a hit modifier of .4 compared to .6 for infantry, so when not fortified that light vehicle will be missed more often than the infantry.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 796
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #37 on: September 22, 2018, 04:27:39 PM »
Maneuverability is reflected by the hit modifier, which effectively works as "free" fortification when your fortification is low or can't be used, like being on the attack. Light vehicles have a hit modifier of .4 compared to .6 for infantry, so when not fortified that light vehicle will be missed more often than the infantry.

Ok... that I did not know... but it still does not make the light vehicle especially better against infantry than the power armour infantry on the attack... at the most marginally better (I did not do the math on it). Given that infantry are much better when defending I don't see why I would use a light vehicle like that with the current rules and stats, a crew served CAP seem way better in general since it have half the size and you basically get two of them for the same prize.

2x (Power Armoured Infantry with CAP, Size 12, 6 shots, AP 10, Damage 10, Armour 20, 10 HP)

Or

1x (Light Vehicle with CAP, Size 24, 6 shots, AP 10, Damage 10, Armour 20, 30 HP)


In general it seems better to overwhelm enemy attacks with numbers with low armour and use stronger weapons to pierce enemy armour. It seems to be more cost effective in general even if it requires more Supplies. But cheap bodies so the strong weapons is not attacked too often is the way to go. Tanks and heavier vehicle is rather big so will be hit rather often even by cheap anti-tank weapons while the anti-tank platform is smaller in size, cheaper and hit less often even if more numerous at times.

One of the better use of cheap infantry is to soak enemy gunfire since you are more likely to hit the infantry rather than your crew served weapons or anti-tank weapons. Heavier vehicles mainly seem to be very big targets and the more tanks there are the more likely your anti-tank guns and artillery are to hit them.

Not sure what the heaviest anti-tank weapon infantry can use is, but it will be quite small and cheap in comparison to big tanks, small size also make them less of a target in the same numbers.

Again... I might be presumptuous in these thoughts.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #38 on: September 22, 2018, 04:51:47 PM »
I'm actually somewhat coming around to the idea of power armor instead of light vehicles as anti-infantry assault units based on your numbers, especially since infantry can go up to armor 30 (which, assuming roughly equal tech, makes them difficult targets for the "ideal" anti-infantry weapons of CAP and HCAP).

I disagree on the idea that infantry will be able to swarm down heavy vehicles with more numerous weapons, though. It looks like the best anti-vehicle weapons infantry can use are AP 20 (HCAP and LAV), and that just wont cut it against the most armored vehicles. Against a Heavy Vehicle with 60 armor, the LAV hit only has a 1 in 9 chance to kill, and all 6 hits from an HCAP are the same chance combined. If the opponent brings armor 90 Super-heavy vehicles, that turns into 1 in 40ish (and 1 in 144 for a 120 armor ultra-heavy vehicle).

So I think you're going to want larger anti-tank weapons for the big stuff. On the defense this can be static units with Heavy anti-vehicle, though on the attack you might want your own tanks.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 796
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #39 on: September 22, 2018, 05:38:04 PM »
I'm actually somewhat coming around to the idea of power armor instead of light vehicles as anti-infantry assault units based on your numbers, especially since infantry can go up to armor 30 (which, assuming roughly equal tech, makes them difficult targets for the "ideal" anti-infantry weapons of CAP and HCAP).

I disagree on the idea that infantry will be able to swarm down heavy vehicles with more numerous weapons, though. It looks like the best anti-vehicle weapons infantry can use are AP 20 (HCAP and LAV), and that just wont cut it against the most armored vehicles. Against a Heavy Vehicle with 60 armor, the LAV hit only has a 1 in 9 chance to kill, and all 6 hits from an HCAP are the same chance combined. If the opponent brings armor 90 Super-heavy vehicles, that turns into 1 in 40ish (and 1 in 144 for a 120 armor ultra-heavy vehicle).

So I think you're going to want larger anti-tank weapons for the big stuff. On the defense this can be static units with Heavy anti-vehicle, though on the attack you might want your own tanks.

Humm... perhaps but if I'm not wrong then infantry are still capable to bring down at least heavy vehicles with no direct problems.

A Leeman Russ tank as Steve used had a cost of 12.48 while a Storm Trooper was 0.2 in cost so you get 62 troopers for one tank.

The infantry is also more difficult to hit with a 0.6 penalty while the heavy tank is 0.8 but lets disregard that.

62 shots with AP 10 against Armour 60 means 1.74 (around 2.8% per shot) will penetrate and have roughly a (10/60*1.74) roughly 30% chance to kill the tank each round if my math is right. The chance of the tank to kill all the Stormtroopers before they kill the tank are pretty slim. If you add crew served weapons the math tilt even more heavily in favour of the infantry.

To be honest I would only use tanks to kill enemy tanks and keep them in reserve if there are little to no enemy big vehicles. Artillery and aircraft are probably enough to kill big vehicles so infantry can soak enemy damage... but again I might be wrong.

Unless there are some combat or recruit limitation of soldiers then tanks seem rather expensive for their use in general... or?!?

Can we use people as cannon fodder without any sort of moral penalties outside role-play?!?
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 796
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #40 on: September 22, 2018, 07:04:57 PM »
Some other thoughts...

Lets look at Static Heavy Bombardment Artillery as Anti-Vehicle AND anti-personnel weapon.


Static, Light Armour, Heavy Bombardment; 3 shots, 20 AP, 60 Damage with 10 Armour and 30 Hit points for 1.44 cost.

You get to build 8-9 of those for a single heavy tank.

lets say roughly 26 shots at AP 20 for 11% penetration chance per shot at 2.86 penetration per turn. At 60 damage that is three tanks dead. Even if the front is low on tanks these artillery pieces are not that bad against other stuff.


Static, Light Armour, Medium Bombardment; 3 shots, 15 AP, 30 Damage with 10 Armour and 30 hit points for 1.04 cost.

You get roughly 12 of these.

So 36 shots for 2.25 penetrations and 1.12 killed tanks... less effective heavy tank killer but slightly better at killing infantry if they have low armour.


Vehicle, Light Vehicle armour, 2 Medium Anti-Vehicle cannons; Size 82, 2 Shots, AP 40, Damage 60 for Armour 20 and 40 hit points and 3.28 cost

So... you would only put these forward on the front line when there is a sizeable chunk of enemy tanks and not a huge amount so they are rarely targeted.

You get roughly 4 of these anti-tank assets.

8 shots at 44% penetration is 3.52 hits and kills


A medium/heavy vehicle with 2/3 HCAP would be good when for assault...

Vehicle, Light Vehicle Armour, 2x HCAP for 2.58 cost. 40 Hit Points and 20 Armour.
Heavy Vehicle, Light Vehicle Armour, 3x HCAP for 3.86 cost. 60 Hit Points and 20 Armour.

Both of these are cheap enough to go on the line and not too big to be immediate target if in decently small numbers.

The medium one will have roughly the same amount of shots as the same cost of power armoured marines but AP 20 instead of AP 10 thus more effective at high armoured targets. But then again why not use HCAP Marines instead at 0.8 cost, I get three to four of those for each vehicle. If they have Armour 30 they cost 1.2 but are allot more difficult to kill for regular infantry and I can use a higher mix of them in the army.

And as said going to 30 Armour with infantry is a big deal for their survival-ability against all infantry weapons... against vehicle weapons it does not really matter much because big vehicles are so damn expensive anyway and kill very little Armour 30 infantry, even with HCAP weapons. I still get roughly 42 Heavily Powered infnatry for 1 Leeman-Russ battletank... or better with 30 Marines and 3 HCAP marines for each tank. I would probably not be afraid to go even a ratio of 8 Marines and 2 HCAP Marines... sort of squads of 5 with one HCAP in each one... ;)
If the enemy have a strong tank presence then add a squadron of Anti-Tank vehicles for each company, otherwise just keep them in reserve.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2018, 07:09:17 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #41 on: September 22, 2018, 07:09:35 PM »
My point all along has been that lightly armored units are more cost effective if you ignore size, while armored units are more efficient on a per size basis, so all around you'd probably expect the cost equivalent in cheap infantry to beat a tank.

That said, it depends on how they're fitted out. A Heavy Vehicle with, say, a HAV and a CAP comes in at 96 size, 576 cost, 60 armor, 60 health, and gets 7 shots each with 100% chance of an infantry kill on a hit. That would be the same cost as 115 unarmored infantry, whose personal weapons would have a 1 in 216 chance of taking out the tank. So, ignoring accuracy/fortification (which would tend to favor the infantry), that would come out as an average of ~.5 tank kills by the infantry and 7 infantry kills per round. You could make a dedicated anti-infantry vehicle, say a heavy vehicle with just 2 CAPs, but that probably wouldn't be a realistic comparison.

However, size is the limitation there. Those soldiers take 6x as much transport room, which means it's hard to invade a planet with them. Your thousands of infantry with rifles are likely to make an effective garrison against invasion, though.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 796
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #42 on: September 22, 2018, 07:35:03 PM »
My point all along has been that lightly armored units are more cost effective if you ignore size, while armored units are more efficient on a per size basis, so all around you'd probably expect the cost equivalent in cheap infantry to beat a tank.

That said, it depends on how they're fitted out. A Heavy Vehicle with, say, a HAV and a CAP comes in at 96 size, 576 cost, 60 armor, 60 health, and gets 7 shots each with 100% chance of an infantry kill on a hit. That would be the same cost as 115 unarmored infantry, whose personal weapons would have a 1 in 216 chance of taking out the tank. So, ignoring accuracy/fortification (which would tend to favor the infantry), that would come out as an average of ~.5 tank kills by the infantry and 7 infantry kills per round. You could make a dedicated anti-infantry vehicle, say a heavy vehicle with just 2 CAPs, but that probably wouldn't be a realistic comparison.

However, size is the limitation there. Those soldiers take 6x as much transport room, which means it's hard to invade a planet with them. Your thousands of infantry with rifles are likely to make an effective garrison against invasion, though.

I agree that size mostly matter during transport but it also is important for target selection in combat... so not entirely unimportant.

We also don't know how much size on transports will matter to the overall cost of producing troop transports. I could see an invasion army being rather defensive until it built a large force to attack with on the planet. Sure it will take longer to deploy the armies... perhaps several trips for you transport ships... but you don't need to attack until you prepared your army. So it can still use lots and lots of infantry.

Armour 30 infantry also seem pretty potent, even against regular infantry cost wise.

I'm also not sure how much of a problem Supply is going to be for regular light infantry versus heavier infantry since they will need allot more supply for the amount of kills they will do against high quality infantry.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #43 on: September 22, 2018, 07:43:12 PM »
If you land a sixth of your invasion force they certainly can attack you before you return with more. It means giving up the fortification bonus but that's a small price to pay for defeating you in detail.

Also each time you land you'll be taking fire from any surface to orbit weapons.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7122
  • Thanked: 2040 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Reply #44 on: September 23, 2018, 06:24:05 AM »
I agree that the HCAP is probably is a little powerful in relation to other similar cost weapons. I'll reduce the base AP from 2 to 1.6.
 

 

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