Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread: C# Edition

[skoormit]

...
Is my percentage of around 1/3 blank systems the same as with other people's games , or am i just unlucky with the die roll generation of systems ?

Do other people also find systems with just a habitable planet and nothing much else?

DavidR

You've been on the unlucky side.
My current game: 24 known, 2 empty, 2 only comets.

I don't know if I've ever seen a system with one habitable planet and nothing else.

Heck, systems with only one planet are pretty uncommon, regardless of habitability, moons, or asteroids--nearly all systems with any planets have multiple planets.

[davidr]

skoormit,

Here is an example of a system in my game - not including the 8 blank or comet only systems.

I think I will start a new game.

DavidR

[Garfunkel]

Fighter Combat bonus is a modifier for chance to hit while commanding fighters. Essentially it is tactical bonus for fighters. I think it is also applied at 100% of the commanding officer's bonus unlike other skills.

Does fighter combat stack with tactical?

No I don't think tactical applies at all to fighters.

Fighter Combat bonus applies to fighter commanders.

Tactical bonus applies to tactical officers on board of ships with a CIC module.

[nuclearslurpee]

Fighter Combat bonus applies to fighter commanders.

Tactical bonus applies to tactical officers on board of ships with a CIC module.

Tactical bonus also applies at 50% of the bonus for the commander of any ship (except fighters? This I do not know), following the same rules as for other commander skills for which a ship module and non-command role exists, e.g., a ship commander puts forth 50% of their own Crew Training skill while a ship XO puts forth 100% of theirs if present.

[Black]

skoormit,

Here is an example of a system in my game - not including the 8 blank or comet only systems.

I think I will start a new game.

DavidR

I got bored by having so many empty systems, so I save before a jump and if the system is empty I reload. I want to have fun and so many empty systems do not do it for me.

[Garfunkel]

Fighter Combat bonus applies to fighter commanders.

Tactical bonus applies to tactical officers on board of ships with a CIC module.

Tactical bonus also applies at 50% of the bonus for the commander of any ship (except fighters? This I do not know), following the same rules as for other commander skills for which a ship module and non-command role exists, e.g., a ship commander puts forth 50% of their own Crew Training skill while a ship XO puts forth 100% of theirs if present.

Have you confirmed that the captain gives 50% even if there is no CIC in the ship? Or has anyone? I thought that they didn't but I could be wrong as I haven't actually tested it.

[nuclearslurpee]

Have you confirmed that the captain gives 50% even if there is no CIC in the ship? Or has anyone? I thought that they didn't but I could be wrong as I haven't actually tested it.

Not rigorously, but I regularly see different hit chances for different ships without any CICs included which I take to indicate the different Tactical skills of their captains. I don't believe this is attributed to different crew training levels but I haven't done a rigorous analysis to confirm that.

[ChubbyPitbull]

Is there a way to prevent Overhauls from clearing orders, but also not have the ships/fleet undergoing overhaul attempt to execute any orders until overhaul is complete?

I'm trying to set up a rotating guard on a jump point. The idea is I'd have three fleets, each on a 4 month rotation where they would sit on station at the jump point for 4 months, cycle back to a shipyard 1 jump away for R&R and overhauls, then automatically return on station at the jump point and cycle its moves. Then I'll always have a minimum of two of the three fleets standing guard out of the year, and won't have to keep cycling fleets back for overhauls manually.

Right now when I set up the hold for 4 months and return for overhauls with cycled orders, the entire set of orders is cleared when overhauls begin so I have to manually order them back on station at the jump point

[Garfunkel]

Not possible.

Make saved orders so you can reload them with one click.

[Agraelgrimm]

What does autocannon do? Are they a mix of AA, AC and AT weapons? What does it does with tanks for instance?

[Zap0]

They're a middle ground between AT and MG, yeah. It doesn't shoot fighters. On equal tech and equal sizes they usually don't penetrate tanks, but they can be good against heavy powerarmor, for instance. Keep in mind that it doesn't matter much whether you have 5 or 20 penetration when shooting at something with 35 armor, you need to have something at least closely approaching the target's armor to have a chance at penetrating it. Then the same applies to the kill roll with damage and HP.

Check out the ground rule posts in the change index for more details on ground combat mechanics.

[Garfunkel]

Autocannon is a compromise between Anti-Vehicle and Anti-Personnel weapons.

If your weapon tech is higher than enemy's armour tech, then your AC equipped vehicles will be cheaper than AV equipped vehicles while doing roughly equal damage.

If your weapon tech is lower than enemy's armour tech, then your AC equipped vehicles are useless cannon fodder.

AC is always worse than a dedicated AV or AP weapon but since you cannot be sure what armour strength your enemy is using, it's a hedging-your-bet sort of compromise. So you can use it as the third module on SH/UH vehicles alongside HCAP and HAV or as the only module on LVH.

But if you want to get the best bang out of your buck, you double down on anti-vehicle and anti-personnel weapons, meaning you only carry HCAP and HAV into battle.

[Droll]

Autocannon is a compromise between Anti-Vehicle and Anti-Personnel weapons.

If your weapon tech is higher than enemy's armour tech, then your AC equipped vehicles will be cheaper than AV equipped vehicles while doing roughly equal damage.

If your weapon tech is lower than enemy's armour tech, then your AC equipped vehicles are useless cannon fodder.

AC is always worse than a dedicated AV or AP weapon but since you cannot be sure what armour strength your enemy is using, it's a hedging-your-bet sort of compromise. So you can use it as the third module on SH/UH vehicles alongside HCAP and HAV or as the only module on LVH.

But if you want to get the best bang out of your buck, you double down on anti-vehicle and anti-personnel weapons, meaning you only carry HCAP and HAV into battle.

HCAP is only really useful if your weapons tech is less than the enemies armor tech. As it costs/weighs more, has same number of shots and does the same damage but has higher penetration than CAP. You could make an excuse for using HCAP if your weapons tech is slightly superior than OPFORs armour as HCAP then can hit and penetrate light vehicles more effectively but even then I'm not sure.

[nuclearslurpee]

AC is always worse than a dedicated AV or AP weapon but since you cannot be sure what armour strength your enemy is using, it's a hedging-your-bet sort of compromise. So you can use it as the third module on SH/UH vehicles alongside HCAP and HAV or as the only module on LVH.

But if you want to get the best bang out of your buck, you double down on anti-vehicle and anti-personnel weapons, meaning you only carry HCAP and HAV into battle.

This isn't entirely true although it broadly holds up as advice for new players and probably holds up against most NPR compositions which are built around basic INF and VEH elements.

However, MAC specifically is actually the best weapon against a number of (equal-tech) power armor + gene-modded infantry elements as well as being the best direct-fire weapon type against static elements (bombardment weapons are better against light and medium static armor). I would guess that this optimal positioning roughly holds when against superior-tech opponents but I have not run calculations to check how this changes for heavy weapons which overmatch equal tech.

HCAP is only really useful if your weapons tech is less than the enemies armor tech. As it costs/weighs more, has same number of shots and does the same damage but has higher penetration than CAP. You could make an excuse for using HCAP if your weapons tech is slightly superior than OPFORs armour as HCAP then can hit and penetrate light vehicles more effectively but even then I'm not sure.

HCAP is usually the best INF-usable weapon type against any kind of power armored infantry, except maximum armor/HP variants against which LAV is better. Again, likely not necessary against NPRs with fairly basic element designs but relevant against other player races and probably against superior-tech enemies.

[Garfunkel]

Yeah, since you cannot know the armour tech level of an NPR before you fight them and since it takes years to build a big army, it's generally best to go all in regardless of the cost and use only HCAP and HAV. It can be incredibly wasteful but you're unlikely to always have time to finetune your army to your enemies.

Unless you're doing a multi-faction Earth start or you're emulating a real military or you're doing an RP game where you need loads of different units for flavour.