Author Topic: Questions and comments about my newbie plan for ground forces?  (Read 156 times)

buergerjoh and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Panpiper (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • P
  • Posts: 50
My current ground forces plan consists of this. This is designed to chew up an enemy rapidly while taking relatively little damage. I am not sure if I should build lighter forces to garrison my worlds. Frankly, I would prefer to garrison them with just such a brigade as described below.

Battalion HQ Support Company 4887 CP itself containing:
36 heavy Artillery
12 heavy Anti-Aircraft
1 Battalion HQ Vehicle

Subordinate to this battalion HQ is three company units.

Each Mechanized Infantry Company 5069 CP containing:
12 Superheavy Ogre APCs (Superheavy anti-vehicle, Heavy autocannon & Heavy crew-served AP)
48 Powered Armor Gatling Gunners
96 Powered Infantry
1 Company Command HQ

The companies can be commanded by the lowest-ranked commanders. Battalions will need a command potential of 20K.

Three battalions together will form a brigade, under a relatively small Brigade HQ (probably just some extra AA). However many supply trucks will be added to the Brigade HQ as availability and need dictate. I'm not sure I will need larger force structures than this. What say you?

Something I am quite unclear about... I should obviously flag the HQ units and supply trucks with "avoid combat". However I want my artillery and anti-aircraft guns to stay off the front lines. Will that happen simply by virtue of their being higher up the hierarchy or should they too be flagged "avoid combat"? Would this perhaps prevent them from bombarding targets and shooting down aircraft?
 

Offline captainwolfer

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • c
  • Posts: 33
  • Thanked: 11 times
So, you want your HQ to be in the "Rear Echelon" position.

Don't flag your artillery and AA with Avoid combat, that reduces their chance to hit by 75%

Don't have time to write more specific response, so will instead link to post on ground combat mechanics
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109786#msg109786
 
The following users thanked this post: Panpiper

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 2123
  • Thanked: 347 times
The force structure seem quite alright for a powerful and expensive attacking force but way too expensive as a defensive force.

I generally have three branches of army... the Garrison, the regular Army and the Marines... what you have would be best described as my Marine forces... the one who are in the front of any serious attack.

The army would be something in between with decent infantry and armoured formation a true mechanised force. It's role is to be able to bolster places that need serious defence or alternatively can support the Marines in offensive undertakings if needed, like invading a large enemy colony or a home-world.

For defence you need more light infantry and static units, that would be your garrisons.

In my current campaign my Garrison Battalions are roughly from memory:

1000 Garrison Infantry (PWL)
50 Fortified CAP (Static, Medium Armour)
30 Fortified Mixed LAV, MAV (don't have HAV tech in this game yet)
10 Static LAA (Static, Light armour)

Some FFD and at least 2 HQ-4800t command units.

There are usually around 4500t troops... I always leave some for future upgrades or just able to reinforce the garrisons if needed. Total cost of formation is about 175 I think a total GSP cost of around 600 and

The main thing with your formation is that it will be very expensive in terms of logistics cost... if you are mainly up against infantry then your artillery and tanks will cost way more than the damage they will make. Most colonies have lot's of infantry on them and you are very likely going to run out of LOG units unless you bring allot of them. This is against the AI.

In my current game I have researched allot of Carronades or Plasma tech... this have made my ground tech heavily leaning at armour penetration... so my tanks and many APC mainly use Auto-cannons rather than Anti-Vehicle weapons. I'm at weapon tech 12 and armour only 8.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 07:18:20 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 
The following users thanked this post: Panpiper

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 357
  • Thanked: 163 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
For sake of clarity, my best guess at your composition (based on stated tonnages, likely to be wrong) is something like this:

Quote
Battalion HQ Support Company 4887 CP itself containing:
36 heavy Artillery
12 heavy Anti-Aircraft
1 Battalion HQ Vehicle

36 x VEH+HB/HCAP = 98 tons each, 3,528 tons total
12 x VEH+HAA/HCAP = 98 tons each, 1,176 tons total
1 x ??? with HQ21 or higher, 183 tons

For RP this is fine, but for combat efficiency you want to have 2x HB or HAA and not waste ~25% of your weapons tonnage on HCAP for a rear echelon formation. This would mean fewer vehicles but more actual fire delivered to the targets.

Quote
Each Mechanized Infantry Company 5069 CP containing:
12 Superheavy Ogre APCs (Superheavy anti-vehicle, Heavy autocannon & Heavy crew-served AP)
48 Powered Armor Gatling Gunners
96 Powered Infantry
1 Company Command HQ

12 x SHV + SHAV/HAC/HCAP = 280 tons each, 3,360 tons total
48 x INF + HCAP (armored) = 20 tons each, 960 tons total
96 x INF + PWI (armored) = 6 tons each, 576 tons total
1 x SHV+HQ5/HCAP/HCAP = 173 tons

Again for RP this is fine, but for practical use it is probably too heavy which means expensive and supply-intensive. It might depend on what point you're at in the game, but as a self-described newbie I'm guessing you're not too far into your campaign and the kinds of units that require heavy weaponry - not to mention the heavy weaponry itself - is going to be prohibitively expensive to research so early and few if any NPRs would even consider doing so. You can probably get more fire on target, and a higher overall tonnage kill rate, by using regular old MAV, MAC, CAP, and PW.

Standard VEH mounting for the MAV/MAC is fine, you could put a few thousand RPs into heavy vehicles if you wanted to which would blunt enemy MAV pretty effectively. SHV and UHV are so massive that they're really not tonnage-effective ways to deliver firepower early in the game, they're more useful once better techs and bigger units are being fielded as something you can drop into the middle of a battlefield and write "Local Tank is <censored> Invincible" stories about in the propaganda papers rather than as any kind of main line element.

That said, you've broadly got the unit composition right - AV + AC + CAP covers all your bases, while some will denigrate the AC line of weapons it does excel versus light-armored units that AV overkills but (H)CAP doesn't penetrate well. Just you don't need to be so heavy about it, use lighter weapons and more of them to concentrate fire.

Also, since you're close to the 5,000 ton mark try to get at or just under rather than over unless your OOB is derived from RP considerations, it will make transport logistics a lot simpler. Currently your 4-formation battalion (HQ + 3xCO) will require just over 20,000 tons of transport capacity and the largest transport module holds 5k tons. Of course there's nothing wrong with having a 5,069-ton formation, it will just be a bit of a logistical headache for you.

Quote
Three battalions together will form a brigade, under a relatively small Brigade HQ (probably just some extra AA). However many supply trucks will be added to the Brigade HQ as availability and need dictate. I'm not sure I will need larger force structures than this. What say you?

Three-level force structures are fine. The only problem with them is that they don't play neatly with the auto-assign, if you have a fourth-level commander at the top of your hierarchy you may run into problems but you can just assign them manually (it's one guy every once in a blue moon, not a big problem) or design a specialized Corps HQ for commanding really big planetary assaults once you get to that point.

Quote
Something I am quite unclear about... I should obviously flag the HQ units and supply trucks with "avoid combat". However I want my artillery and anti-aircraft guns to stay off the front lines. Will that happen simply by virtue of their being higher up the hierarchy or should they too be flagged "avoid combat"? Would this perhaps prevent them from bombarding targets and shooting down aircraft?

The effect of the "Avoid Combat" flag is that a unit will have -75% chance to hit or be hit/targeted in ground combat (and only ground combat). As artillery and AA are ground combat elements you do not want them to have this flag. HQs, FFD, LOG, and other specialized non-combat elements should have this flag set as they do not fire in combat. STOs are a special case, you do want to set that flag even though they are "combat" elements, because they do not participate in ground combat but rather fire at ships in space. Another special case would be if you have a vehicle-mounted non-combat module alongside a secondary weapon such as CAP; in this case it is up to you but I would usually still mark that element to avoid combat as the non-combat module is usually more important than an extra machine gun or whatever. Once you're building UHVs with a HQ module and three HACs then you may want to reconsider that advice.

Summary:
DO set the Avoid Combat flag for: HQ, LOG, FFD, CON, GEO, XEN, and STO elements. These do not shoot in ground combat and thus want to have the extra evasion chance.
DO NOT set the flag for: PW, CAP, AV, AC, Bombardment, and AA elements. You want these units to shoot at full effectiveness.

----

Also whatever Jorgen said is probably good advice too.
 
The following users thanked this post: Panpiper

Offline Panpiper (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • P
  • Posts: 50
I've taken everyone's advice to heart. My 'space marines' are now much toned down and cost about a quarter as much. They are configured identically except for being on medium chassis and medium armoured frames. The front line tanks have heavy anti-tank still but are complimented by medium autocannon. The infantry remains identical. The battalion level troops field the same number of artillery and AA but it is now medium and half the number of vehicles. They will all be far less exigent in finding commanders for. It is not lost on me of course that now I can afford a 'much' bigger force if that proves optimal.

I have also put together a much less expensive garrison unit much as was described. It is a bit pricier than Jorgan's because I could not bring myself to leave a thousand garrison troop with merely their sidearms. I think they will contribute much more towards a favourable exchange of casualties with the first level upgrade. There were a couple of similar other tweaks.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 2123
  • Thanked: 347 times
I've taken everyone's advice to heart. My 'space marines' are now much toned down and cost about a quarter as much. They are configured identically except for being on medium chassis and medium armoured frames. The front line tanks have heavy anti-tank still but are complimented by medium autocannon. The infantry remains identical. The battalion level troops field the same number of artillery and AA but it is now medium and half the number of vehicles. They will all be far less exigent in finding commanders for. It is not lost on me of course that now I can afford a 'much' bigger force if that proves optimal.

I have also put together a much less expensive garrison unit much as was described. It is a bit pricier than Jorgan's because I could not bring myself to leave a thousand garrison troop with merely their sidearms. I think they will contribute much more towards a favourable exchange of casualties with the first level upgrade. There were a couple of similar other tweaks.

One note... my PWL weapons are almost as good as "Normal" infantry weapons at penetrating armour, so they are pretty powerful weapons in their own rights (from our perspective). My "Normal" infantry weapons are good enough to penetrate our marines "Power Armour". That is because they are made with weapon tech 12 versus Armour tech 8...  ;)

From role-play perspective they also are more a mix of militia and some fortified positions using heavier weapons, more like National Guard type formations.

If I were to fight my own troops then Power Armour is useless unless I fight my own National Guards.
 

Offline serger

  • Silver Supporter
  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 304
  • Thanked: 41 times
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
By the way, have anyone tested if it possible to prescribe Civilian Mining Companies to garrison their sites with formations you are designing for them?
I mean, at the start they make their Civilian Garrison template, but it seems we can modify this template. I haven't tested it yet and even haven't tracked if this template is updating automatically with new GF updating system.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 2123
  • Thanked: 347 times
By the way, have anyone tested if it possible to prescribe Civilian Mining Companies to garrison their sites with formations you are designing for them?
I mean, at the start they make their Civilian Garrison template, but it seems we can modify this template. I haven't tested it yet and even haven't tracked if this template is updating automatically with new GF updating system.

I'm sure that they use troops that are one tech level below yours and they update automatically when you get new technology.

You probably could change their template but it would change back every-time you get technology that update it. To be honest if you could you probably should not do that as that is probably more a bug than a feature in that case.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75