Marine Company

[serger]

Why will you have 1/10th bonus after losing a redundant HQ unit? Either the commander is taken out and you completely lose the bonus, or the commander isn't taken out and your identical backup HQ means they continue to function at 100% effectiveness.

Some bits of your post mention tiny secondary command posts, which would work as badly as you describe here, but I'm not sure why anyone would be talking about that?

It was my answer to this post:

It seems to me you're confusing a HQ element with a HQ formation. There is no need to put say 2x 100k HQ formation to a 100k army (though it would have very secure command chain it's redundant due to waste of tonnage) But to a HQ formation, when you you put, say 20x HQ element that counts as one HQ command with one commander but it has 20x HP thus it's not possible to knock that commander off the chain unless you wipe out all HQ elements.

This cannot be a suggestion to add 20x full-size HQ elements, it must be about 20x 1/20th-size elements, so was my "2)" point, and therefore my "3)" point as obvious ("gamey" as consiefe opposed to roleplay) minimax optimization.

[Ulzgoroth]

Why will you have 1/10th bonus after losing a redundant HQ unit? Either the commander is taken out and you completely lose the bonus, or the commander isn't taken out and your identical backup HQ means they continue to function at 100% effectiveness.

Some bits of your post mention tiny secondary command posts, which would work as badly as you describe here, but I'm not sure why anyone would be talking about that?

It was my answer to this post:

It seems to me you're confusing a HQ element with a HQ formation. There is no need to put say 2x 100k HQ formation to a 100k army (though it would have very secure command chain it's redundant due to waste of tonnage) But to a HQ formation, when you you put, say 20x HQ element that counts as one HQ command with one commander but it has 20x HP thus it's not possible to knock that commander off the chain unless you wipe out all HQ elements.

This cannot be a suggestion to add 20x full-size HQ elements, it must be about 20x 1/20th-size elements, so was my "2)" point, and therefore my "3)" point as obvious ("gamey" as consiefe opposed to roleplay) minimax optimization.

Why, in fact, can it not be a suggestion to add 20x full-size HQ elements? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it is.

[serger]

Why, in fact, can it not be a suggestion to add 20x full-size HQ elements? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it is.

Because, again, there was my addressee's words:

----
There is no need to put say 2x 100k HQ formation to a 100k army (though it would have very secure command chain it's redundant due to waste of tonnage)
----

[Ulzgoroth]

Why, in fact, can it not be a suggestion to add 20x full-size HQ elements? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it is.

Because, again, there was my addressee's words:

----
There is no need to put say 2x 100k HQ formation to a 100k army (though it would have very secure command chain it's redundant due to waste of tonnage)
----

Which supports your conclusion how?

Having two separate formations isn't particularly useful. Calling it out as a waste of tonnage seems odd, it's more that it just doesn't help at all, but there's certainly no need for it.

Having multiple HQ units within your HQ formations (and probably also every front-line formation) to provide some resilience if the HQ element draws fire is very useful.

EDIT: And in particular, it reduces the risk of your commanders dying and leaving you with your problem of not having on-site replacement officers, as well as reducing the risk of a formation losing all HQ units and breaking the chain that way.

[Borealis4x (OP)]

Quick question: Does Ground Unit armor update automatically every time you research new armor tech?

[serger]

Quick question: Does Ground Unit armor update automatically every time you research new armor tech?

Just for new-designed formation elements.
Formations, that have old template elements will be built with old techs.

[Borealis4x (OP)]

Quick question: Does Ground Unit armor update automatically every time you research new armor tech?

Just for new-designed formation elements.
Formations, that have old template elements will be built with old techs.

So you have to delete and  re-train entire armies just to give them new armor?

[consiefe]

Why will you have 1/10th bonus after losing a redundant HQ unit? Either the commander is taken out and you completely lose the bonus, or the commander isn't taken out and your identical backup HQ means they continue to function at 100% effectiveness.

Some bits of your post mention tiny secondary command posts, which would work as badly as you describe here, but I'm not sure why anyone would be talking about that?

It was my answer to this post:

It seems to me you're confusing a HQ element with a HQ formation. There is no need to put say 2x 100k HQ formation to a 100k army (though it would have very secure command chain it's redundant due to waste of tonnage) But to a HQ formation, when you you put, say 20x HQ element that counts as one HQ command with one commander but it has 20x HP thus it's not possible to knock that commander off the chain unless you wipe out all HQ elements.

This cannot be a suggestion to add 20x full-size HQ elements, it must be about 20x 1/20th-size elements, so was my "2)" point, and therefore my "3)" point as obvious ("gamey" as consiefe opposed to roleplay) minimax optimization.

May the ground forces be with you! I'm sure you'll find out yourself.

[serger]

So you have to delete and  re-train entire armies just to give them new armor?

Yep.
It was some... vehemence in different suggestion threads about it. 

[serger]

Which supports your conclusion how?

Having two separate formations isn't particularly useful. Calling it out as a waste of tonnage seems odd, it's more that it just doesn't help at all

That's it, above all: I think consiefe was not opposing this obvious trash, so "formation" have to be a typo, it have to be "element" there - just as we discussed above that post (my starting replica was about elements too: "IIRC, there is no non-RP reason to duplicate HQ elements to lower chance of beheading strike"), and then consiefe answered writing "unit" instead of "element", and therefore no disbeleave in further typo - "formation" instead of "unit".

And if it was about 20x full-size HQ elements... well, that's obviously not an improvement:

Infantry HQ is 1% of their command limit size (10t for 1000t command limit).
So, 20x full-size HQ is 20% of overall combat force.
With the same principle in all command tiers you'll have 51.2% of tonnage to HQ elements only for 3-tier infantry-only force (regimental - that is plausible force to knock out fortified standart battalion-level mining colony garrison of the same tech level without heavy loot-cracking orbital fire support - thats what infantry drops are for, yep).

MV HQ is 4% to 8.8% of their command limit size, depending on secondary equipment.
So, 20x full-size MV HQ is 80 to 178% of overall combat force.
For army-level with MV HQs... you'll leave no tonnage for combat and logistical elements at all.

It's obviously not what consiefe talked about.

Having multiple HQ units within your HQ formations (and probably also every front-line formation) to provide some resilience if the HQ element draws fire is very useful.

EDIT: And in particular, it reduces the risk of your commanders dying and leaving you with your problem of not having on-site replacement officers, as well as reducing the risk of a formation losing all HQ units and breaking the chain that way.

Well...
I'll be recurrent.

1.
Adding full-size HQ spare element to your HQ formation (that is - doubling HQ formation size) is doubling the chance this HQ formation will be chosen as target. So, half the chance of KIA, but double chance of hit to get that half the chance. So no advantage at all.

2.
All this HQ size will be substructing from your drop force combat (+support and logistical) elements.
For infantry-only force it will be -1% per 1-level spare HQ, that's smth like statistical error.
For MV it will be -4 to -8.8%, and it's quite noticeable loss of combat elements, but if you have commander with several 20-30% of relevant bonuses - that's good for 1-level force, if it's effective measure to save this commander and their bonuses. Multi-level forces will be more questinable even if no "1." point.

[consiefe]

That's it, above all: I think consiefe was not opposing this obvious trash, so "formation" have to be a typo, it have to be "element" there - just as we discussed above that post (my starting replica was about elements too: "IIRC, there is no non-RP reason to duplicate HQ elements to lower chance of beheading strike"), and then consiefe answered writing "unit" instead of "element", and therefore no disbeleave in further typo - "formation" instead of "unit".

And if it was about 20x full-size HQ elements... well, that's obviously not an improvement:

Infantry HQ is 1% of their command limit size (10t for 1000t command limit).
So, 20x full-size HQ is 20% of overall combat force.
With the same principle in all command tiers you'll have 51.2% of tonnage to HQ elements only for 3-tier infantry-only force (regimental - that is plausible force to knock out fortified standart battalion-level mining colony garrison of the same tech level without heavy loot-cracking orbital fire support - thats what infantry drops are for, yep).

MV HQ is 4% to 8.8% of their command limit size, depending on secondary equipment.
So, 20x full-size MV HQ is 80 to 178% of overall combat force.
For army-level with MV HQs... you'll leave no tonnage for combat and logistical elements at all.

It's obviously not what consiefe talked about.

Well, this is one of my first posts:

It seems to me you're confusing a HQ element with a HQ formation. There is no need to put say 2x 100k HQ formation to a 100k army (though it would have very secure command chain it's redundant due to waste of tonnage) But to a HQ formation, when you you put, say 20x HQ element that counts as one HQ command with one commander but it has 20x HP thus it's not possible to knock that commander off the chain unless you wipe out all HQ elements.

If I made any unintentional typo after this, sorry about that. But all along, a few people told you the same concept. We put more than one HQ elements in a HQ formation. Sometimes I refer element as unit I think. And I was believing you were confused about the element&formation thing. I think I was correct on that part.

This is Steve's test unit. I got the idea from here and started to think about it.




And my HQ formations generally have logistics and somtimes bombardment in them besides HQ elements. I didn't get any problem with that, inversely they performed just fine. Only 2-3k additional weight has been never a problem either, especially with 10x 30k troop transports with orbital drop bays.

Edit: And did you try to alter the command limit value on element design screen?

[serger]

But all along, a few people told you the same concept. We put more than one HQ elements in a HQ formation.

Arrrrrgh!!!!

I'm about the same thing from the start to the latest posts! - about adding HQ elements to our HQ formations!
That's not a point of disagreement, I have no idea why we are discussing this strange idea of having spare HQ formations as if I was about it.

The last discussion turn with Ulzgoroth was about the sizes of these HQ elements, and Ulzgoroth argued that you was about full-sized spare elements. But you was about 10x or 20x spare HQs for any 1-level combat force, and you described MV HQs also, not infantry only. That cannot be full-sized MV HQ, bacause there will be nearly no space for combat elements at all.

I have no clue why we are discussing spare formation HQs instead of it as if it's the only other option...

[consiefe]

But all along, a few people told you the same concept. We put more than one HQ elements in a HQ formation.

Arrrrrgh!!!!

I'm about the same thing from the start to the latest posts! - about adding HQ elements to our HQ formations!
That's not a point of disagreement, I have no idea why we are discussing this strange idea of having spare HQ formations as if I was about it.

The last discussion turn with Ulzgoroth was about the sizes of these HQ elements, and Ulzgoroth argued that you was about full-sized spare elements. But you was about 10x or 20x spare HQs for any 1-level combat force, and you described MV HQs also, not infantry only. That cannot be full-sized MV HQ, bacause there will be nearly no space for combat elements at all.

I have no clue why we are discussing spare formation HQs instead of it as if it's the only other option...

But I WAS about extra HQ elements in a HQ formation. So Ulzgoroth was right about that. About HQs I gave this example: If you want your anti-tank formation to be more resistant against getting killed, you add more elements in it. I was referring it for the HQ formation only. I was not about putting HQs into other combat formations.

Whatever you make up your HQ formations with, be it Vehicle or Infantry type, I was telling you it's a good idea to put some extra of those HQ elements in it.

Edit:

To be clear;

My typical HQ :
10x HQ Elements (whatever command limit I set and whatever type it is)
100x Logistics (whatever type again)
25x-50x Bombardment Units

I try not to cross 10k tonnage, while I do this. That's all it is.

[serger]

This is Steve's test unit. I got the idea from here and started to think about it.

I have no clue why Steve made it with 2 HQ elements - minimax is not Steve's style of play, so it can be any sort of roleplay, copying some real OOB or using some game mechanics we are guessing only.

Edit: And did you try to alter the command limit value on element design screen?

Surely I did!
How I can deal with HQ element sizes if I did not?
I think it's again somehow about I confused formations with elements, but again: no, I was about elements from the start.

[consiefe]

Ok, my all wish was and is well. I just tried to give what I think is a good advice. I still do. Refer my edit in the last post, because I think it clears my stand point.