Building a simple army to conquer the planet NPR

[Droll]

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.

[Entaro (OP)]

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)?)

[nuclearslurpee]

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.

[Entaro (OP)]

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?

[Droll]

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).

[Entaro (OP)]

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?

[nuclearslurpee]

Would I love to read about STO damage mechanics and industry collateral damage? I did not find it on wikipedia

It is here.

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.

[Entaro (OP)]

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 ...

[nuclearslurpee]

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.

[Entaro (OP)]

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.

[Droll]

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.

[Entaro (OP)]

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?

[Droll]

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.

[Entaro (OP)]

   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?)

[nuclearslurpee]

   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.