Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
C# Suggestions / Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Last post by Ghostly on Today at 02:59:36 AM »
After playing around with Ground Combat it feels like something that I'm missing is that feeling that veteran units with alot of combat experience should perform significantly better than a freshly built formation.

The current ground combat model favors heavily armored units mainly to reduce casualties, but the IMO main purpose of reducing casualties should not be to save BP in less replacements needed, it should be to not lose the valuable experience your units gain from battles.

I agree, there's not much benefit to having any veteran units other than those who've been sitting around under a commander with GCT for years, never seeing any combat, which is the opposite of how things should actually work. I suppose this is due to the unit Morale also representing their training level, which is awkward, as you would expect Training and Morale to be separate stats, with Training increasing slowly while idling and quickly when participating in combat, and Morale dropping rapidly while taking losses and increasing while inflicting casualties, performing breakthroughs or idling. The ground unit system is already complex as it is, but I think such a change would be more than justified.
2
The Academy / Re: Ground Forces. Targeting Priority.
« Last post by Louella on Yesterday at 04:11:22 PM »
For my tank units, I create a model of tank with AP weapons, and a model of tank with AT weapons. Think like the WW1 "male" and "female" tanks. "Male" tanks had cannons, "Female" had machineguns.

I then make the tank formations 50% "male" tanks and 50% "female" tanks.

This way when the formation is matched with an enemy formation in ground combat, there's a good chance that half the tanks will be effective against whichever element of the enemy formation they target.

E.g. in a round of ground combat my tank formation is matched with an enemy formation consisting mostly of infantry. The "male" tanks shots are largely ineffective, while the "female" tanks cause a lot of damage.
In a later round of combat, my tank formation is matched with an enemy formation consisting mostly of vehicles. This time, it is the "male" tanks that are most effective.

Having the formation consist of a mix of weapons in this way means that whichever enemy formation it targets, at least some weapons will be effective.

You can achieve similar results with less logistical effort by having a single model of tank with a mix of AP and AT weapons.

But I just like futuristic WW1 tanks :)
3
The Academy / Re: Ground Forces. Targeting Priority.
« Last post by Andrew on Yesterday at 04:10:39 PM »
The weapons do fire independently but as you observed will usually hit infantry, so 4 SHAV is overkill as you will largely be shooting at infantry and if only tanks remain 1 SHAV will still kill a tank per attack.
In practice any SHAV is pretty much overkill as running into something heavier than Medium vehicles is currently almost impossible, I still make super heavy tanks with a SHAV as an RP decision but I do make sure I have a lot of Autocannon and HCAP weapons as they kill infantry. My superheavy tanks carry a SHAV and HAC's which also kill a lot of medium tanks , for pure efficiency HCAPS are better but I overdo it for RP reasons
4
The Academy / Re: Ground Forces. Targeting Priority.
« Last post by gateisgreen on Yesterday at 01:55:01 PM »
4xSHAV is total overkill. Instead, have them carry a mix of CAP, HCAP and LAC and maybe one HAV. It is extremely rare that AI has units with such armour that SHAV is needed. Mopping up the infantry is always needed and always useful.
Oh, but I thought 4 weapons fires independently. Shots are scattered among enemies. The way you say it, it concentrates fire on one single enemy unit, right? If so, I should overhaul my entire army setup then.. eh)
Thanks for advices!
5
The Academy / Re: Ground Forces. Targeting Priority.
« Last post by Aloriel on Yesterday at 10:02:41 AM »
If you really want to mop up infantry, equip your SHV with as many HCAP as you can fit on it. I usually call this an "IFV". Infantry shots will almost certainly bounce right off your SHVA. Their anti-vehicle units will have to shoot your SHVs to really have any chance at destroying them, but they too will have a lower chance of destroying your IFVs (assuming you have equal armor and weapons tech to each other) because SHVA is literally "super heavy". It's very hard to break.

I also make a "tank" that includes 1 HCAP and the rest are SHACs. So, these too will mow through infantry while also possessing firepower to deal with heavy armored.

And finally, I make a "tank destroyer" which includes SHACs and 1 SHAV, just in case I need that extra firepower to take out something heavier than I can field due to tech differential or after their infantry have been wrecked by my IFVs and I want to mop up the remaining heavies.

Losing one of these hurts a bit since they take a lot of BP to make. You can either deal with it by having a lot of extra production for ground units, or you can do what other players do and be a bit monstrous by having infantry soak up shots. I prefer to have the extra production.

Don't forget HB artillery in the rear echelon supporting your assault forces.
6
C# Suggestions / Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Last post by alex_brunius on January 13, 2025, 10:37:55 PM »
After playing around with Ground Combat it feels like something that I'm missing is that feeling that veteran units with alot of combat experience should perform significantly better than a freshly built formation.

The current ground combat model favors heavily armored units mainly to reduce casualties, but the IMO main purpose of reducing casualties should not be to save BP in less replacements needed, it should be to not lose the valuable experience your units gain from battles.
7
The Academy / Re: Ground Forces. Targeting Priority.
« Last post by nuclearslurpee on January 13, 2025, 08:41:20 PM »
Question for players: how to ensure that shots will hit enemy heavily armoured targets? Not be wasted on infantry?

Deploy infantry-killer units first, kill all the enemy infantry, then deploy the SHAV units in a second wave to kill the enemy armor.
8
The Academy / Re: Ground Forces. Targeting Priority.
« Last post by Garfunkel on January 13, 2025, 07:02:29 PM »
4xSHAV is total overkill. Instead, have them carry a mix of CAP, HCAP and LAC and maybe one HAV. It is extremely rare that AI has units with such armour that SHAV is needed. Mopping up the infantry is always needed and always useful.
9
The Academy / Re: Ground Forces. Targeting Priority.
« Last post by Andrew on January 13, 2025, 04:50:38 PM »
No way to do it.
Targetting is random
10
C# Suggestions / Re: Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0
« Last post by NuclearStudent on January 13, 2025, 02:13:00 PM »
Multistage missile research costs are rather high for reduced-pace research games. It's quite punitive to have to pay the research cost of the base stages in addition to the research for the additional stages. I suggest that multistage missiles get a research discount cost - eg. for a size 8 missiles with size 6 of secondary stages, we only pay the research cost of a size 2 missile.

Multistage missiles are fun and it's a bit silly to discourage them.

Dev costs for player designed components have already been reduced in slower-research games in v2.6.

I actually quite like paying significant dev costs for player designed components in general, because it encourages more strategic aforethought and reuse of components. It's just multistage missiles specifically that I think are overcosted in this department.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk