Post reply

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

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

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

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

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: July 20, 2021, 09:57:35 PM »

Might need more cargo shuttles in your transports too.

There's definitely a case for having two different types of troop transports - one for moving garrisons and one for invasions. Because the latter will probably be a lot more expensive to build and maintain than the former.
Posted by: Andrew
« on: July 20, 2021, 02:51:09 PM »

In this case the closest planet for a forward base was about 8 hours away and it took a day and bit to load each of the 3 transport fleets , during that time the first wave was wiped out. So really I needed over a million tons of troop lift not the just over half a million I had. Against a better defended world with more hostile terrain or tech parity I suspect I would have needed 2 million tons of troop lift. I underestimated how long
Posted by: Droll
« on: July 20, 2021, 11:30:17 AM »

Yeah if you don't have enough transports to drop everything within 8 hours don't bother with invasions.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: July 20, 2021, 11:26:32 AM »

I believe many players use forward bases for exactly this reason.
Posted by: Andrew
« on: July 20, 2021, 05:35:55 AM »

having just experimented with invading an NPR Homeworld of lower tech than me, but a smaller margin than I thought. A big expense you have to factor in is troop transport as I was invading without a bombardment to wipe out STO's because I want the population my transports have shields and armour which make them somewhat expensive.
I had prestaged my assault troops to the nearest planet to the homeworld, there being no suitable moon. Each assault wave was 660000 tons of troops with 3 waves available. I lost as each wave got wiped out before the next wave could arrive several days later, it looked like the enemy forces were a mess and a 4th wave would have won.
I then tried again SM'ing all 8 Legions and their command groups onto the world, they won. So for maximum efficiency you either need a forward base a few hours from the planet (even then troop loading time will be a problem) or enough transports to drop you army in one wave. 
Posted by: db48x
« on: June 28, 2021, 11:18:27 AM »

Europe did not plunge to -60 degree's celsius and suffer the death of the entire planatery population over the next few years, although there was a couple of bad winters

That’s merely a matter of degree. With TN tech we could have done the job much more thoroughly :D

War changes a lot over time. Medieval armies sacked towns and villages sure but they didn't demolish stone bridges or buildings "by accident". In contrast Europe and Japan were in rough shape post war because strategic aerial bombing was in its infancy and we hadn't worked out how to min/max it yet. Also, at the time of ww2 "targeting computer" was a job description, not a piece of equipment. With the advent of digital computing and smart munitions, the rate of collateral damage has plummeted and that isn't even taking TN tech into account.

True, but that was an attempted joke. It’s from the intro sequences of various Fallout games, which depict the consequences of a devastating war.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: June 28, 2021, 10:44:22 AM »

It is worth noting that collateral damage is reduced by ~80% in 1.14, if I recall correctly. Not sure if this will solve the problem neatly since collateral damage is difficult to model, but it should hopefully help make conquest a more viable means of acquiring loot.
Posted by: Foxxonius Augustus
« on: June 28, 2021, 09:22:17 AM »

For me the problem isn't actually the number of troops required, it is the amount of collateral damage that a balanced RP army will do.

Try adding any form of medium bombardment and above and you are going to realize that even when avoiding orbital bombardment, you will have very little left to conquer.

That seems fairly realistic to me; Europe was shot up pretty badly in WWII. Japan was not doing so well either. War never changes.

War changes a lot over time. Medieval armies sacked towns and villages sure but they didn't demolish stone bridges or buildings "by accident". In contrast Europe and Japan were in rough shape post war because strategic aerial bombing was in its infancy and we hadn't worked out how to min/max it yet. Also, at the time of ww2 "targeting computer" was a job description, not a piece of equipment. With the advent of digital computing and smart munitions, the rate of collateral damage has plummeted and that isn't even taking TN tech into account.
Posted by: Andrew
« on: June 28, 2021, 09:14:36 AM »

Europe did not plunge to -60 degree's celsius and suffer the death of the entire planatery population over the next few years, although there was a couple of bad winters
Posted by: db48x
« on: June 28, 2021, 08:22:59 AM »

For me the problem isn't actually the number of troops required, it is the amount of collateral damage that a balanced RP army will do.

Try adding any form of medium bombardment and above and you are going to realize that even when avoiding orbital bombardment, you will have very little left to conquer.

That seems fairly realistic to me; Europe was shot up pretty badly in WWII. Japan was not doing so well either. War never changes.
Posted by: Demetrious
« on: June 26, 2021, 03:11:51 PM »

I am getting tired of the asteroid and cometary forts the NPRs build, usually protecting nothing with up to 200,000 tons of ground forces plus several thousand tons of STOs visible.

Perhaps these defenses are emplaced for auto-mine colonies but then not shifted once the deposits play out?
Posted by: IanD
« on: June 25, 2021, 01:12:54 PM »

Well for those, you can always just stand off and lob missiles at them until they're softened up and glowing gently.

But only after you have removed the STOs of which there are usually many thousands of tons and occasionally more!
Posted by: Gyrfalcon
« on: June 24, 2021, 01:48:00 AM »

Well for those, you can always just stand off and lob missiles at them until they're softened up and glowing gently.
Posted by: IanD
« on: June 23, 2021, 05:03:29 PM »

Your armor must have out teched their weapons because you sure suffered light super heavy losses. Sure seems like big vehicles are excellent for assaulting planets.

The best armour on the NPR ships I captured was laminate composite armour. I had only recently achieved biphase carbide armour so given the time ultra heavy vehicles take to produce even having maxed out ground force construction rate most of my forces would be compressed carbon armour and earlier types of armour, hence its principally the first generation units being knocked out. Thus I was not that far ahead of the NPR in armour tech and could not afford to leave any units on the sidelines regardless of their armour!

I have only 32 troop transports with a 50,000 ton capacity and 16 with a 55,000 ton capacity, so I prefer ultra heavy vehicles. Transport capacity is on the tight side. My new standard ultra heavy being armed with 1 x SHAV and 3 x HCAP. My formation size is limited to 10,000 or under. It is helpful that the NPRs don't appear to build more that medium vehicles, but they do build a shed load of them (and infantry).
I am getting tired of the asteroid and cometary forts the NPRs build, usually protecting nothing with up to 200,000 tons of ground forces plus several thousand tons of STOs visible.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: June 23, 2021, 02:59:13 PM »

Your armor must have out teched their weapons because you sure suffered light super heavy losses. Sure seems like big vehicles are excellent for assaulting planets.

Heavy armor is usually effective for planetary assaults as the NPR armies are usually PW/CAP-heavy and I'm not sure they build very many weapons heavier than MAV which itself is unable to penetrate heavy armor.

However compared to infantry formations it does take several times more BP to produce the same tonnage of heavy armored units, for example for the same BP cost as 100,000 tons of SHV (with SHV armor) you could build 900,000 tons of unarmored INF. The latter might actually be more optimal for winning quickly due to sheer volume of fire if you have the transport capacity (note that Lanchester's Law varies with the square of formation size, but only linearly with combat efficiency), however the infantry will definitely suffer higher losses so over a sustained campaign of assaulting several heavily defended worlds the costs in attrition could shift in favor of the SHV.