Too many Orders of Battle

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Too many Orders of Battle

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Suggestions and Feedback >> Too many Orders of Battle

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Too many Orders of Battle - 6/21/2020 12:48:05 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

Feedback:
There are plain simply too many distinct Orders Of Battle in the game. There are just too many combinations.

First a list of the multipliers
Infantry: 3 (None, Foot or APC). Could go to 5 more if you include Motorcycles or Cavalry later.
Tanks: 4 (None, Light, Medium/TH, Heavy/AG, Monitor)
Trucks: 2 (Yes or No)
Too many weapon Systems (MG, AT-Guns, Artillery, Bazooka, Scouting Buggies): 2 each (yes or no).

So my guessy math is:
3x4x2x2^5*

*That is 2 to the power of 5. Or 32.

So I get ~768 distinct OOB's. I think I got a few too many, but it is still in the right order of magninude - hunrdreds.

I asume
- they are a pain to write down for Vic.
- The are a pain to load from the disk/load from the savegame
- They are a pain to discover and Institutionalize over and over.
- it is a pain to find the right one, once you got a few.
- And often those barely varry in anything. Basically "10% of subunits replaced by MG/arty/Tank/whatever".
- And then there is things like "wait, we can put infantry onto trucks if they move together with a [Tank/APC/other selfdriving thing] as well?"
- it will only get worse as more Models are being added
- and there are propably a number of them still missing as well

Sugestion:
I sugest there to be a number of basic OOBs. Stuff equivalent to the Light Infantry or Pure Tank Army. One Base OOB for each Primary unit type.
And then all those other things, are just options we toggle when raising or managing the unit. Want 10% of Primary Subunits replaced with RPG/MG/Artrillery? Maybe each of the above? A simple option to toggle.
Want one of the 4 Tank options? A group of 4 toggles for that as well.
No worries about Indepdant units either. Those options could still need some development to unlock. And for offensive use, a Indepdant unit that is attached is usually better. (shelling with a Indy Arty is better to still have attack capability).

Post #: 1

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 6/21/2020 1:48:56 PM

Cornuthaum

Posts: 91
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline

Your math is off.

For infantry OOBs

infantry: yes/no
infantry: type (everything from light infantry to heavy grenadiers)
organic artillery: yes/no
infantry motorization: none/truck/APC (you can't have APCs and Trucks - it's always (base infantry model) that is either on foot, motorized and mechanized)

armor: yes/no
armor type: light hull/medium hull/heavy hull
attached infantry: yes/no
attached infantry: type

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 2

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 6/21/2020 1:55:20 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cornuthaum

Your math is off.

For infantry OOBs

infantry: yes/no
infantry: type (everything from light infantry to heavy grenadiers)
organic artillery: yes/no
infantry motorization: none/truck/APC (you can't have APCs and Trucks - it's always (base infantry model) that is either on foot, motorized and mechanized)

armor: yes/no
armor type: light hull/medium hull/heavy hull
attached infantry: yes/no
attached infantry: type

When we can not even figure out anymore how many there are, there are definitely too many

(in reply to Cornuthaum)

Post #: 3

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 6/21/2020 2:11:35 PM

ramnblam

Posts: 199
Joined: 6/9/2020
From: Australia
Status: offline

Isn't the reason for this being the case to randomize what the player gets? Just like the tech you can't predict what you're going to get so you have to adjust and make do just like with resources and terrain.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 4

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 6/21/2020 5:21:13 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

I agree that there are too many OOBs. I'd honestly be happy to get rid of 90% and then have to do research to attach various types of other units to OHQs.

In other words, I have a light infantry brigade...I can then research being able to attach artillery, armor, etc. to it. Also, I would have to research how to attach independent units to an OHQ...maybe get one free attachment, but after that each much be researched, with a cap higher than the current two (3-4, dunno).

(in reply to ramnblam)

Post #: 5

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 6/21/2020 7:11:23 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ramnblam

Isn't the reason for this being the case to randomize what the player gets? Just like the tech you can't predict what you're going to get so you have to adjust and make do just like with resources and terrain.

There are different kinds of Randomness:
- The one where you roll a 1D6.
- the one where you throw a dart, while blindfolded, without even knowing if there is something to hit in front of you.

OOB feels like the later.

(in reply to ramnblam)

Post #: 6

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 6/22/2020 7:13:16 AM

MatthewVilter

Posts: 71
Joined: 4/4/2019
Status: offline

Yeah, looking at all that math...I think hundreds might be a bit low if you really wanted OOBs even just for all the at least semi-reasonable combinations...

Foot infantry:

Each of rifle, MG, and RPG with or without some support of the other two is 12 basic foot infantry compositions.

Each of those 12 could have organic support from one or two of pretty much any of the other units in the game but even if we limit ourselves reasonably the list might be:
AT gun, artillery, assault gun, heavy tank, monitor tank, tank destroyer, buggy = 7
so (12 * 1 for no organic support) + (12 * 7 for one type of support) + (12 * 7 * 6 for two types of support) = 12 + 84 + 504 = 600 OOBs for foot infantry.

Mobile Infantry:

Each of rifle, MG, and RPG in trucks or APCs -or- motorbike infantry with or without some support of one or two of of the others (limited to trucks or APCs) is...79 basic mobile infantry compositions I think.

Each of those 79 really could have organic support from one or two of pretty much any of the other units in the game...let's see if we just add a few to the list above:
7 + light tank, medium tank, SPG = 10
so (79 * 1 for no organic support) + (79 * 10 for one type of support) + (79 * 10 * 9 for two types of support) = 79 + 790 + 7110 = 7,979 OOBs for mobile infantry.

I could go on to armored formations but yeah...
(I mean I haven't even been including jetpacks, robots, walkers, and rockets.)

Doing this math has actually convinced me that the only real path forwards must lie in some combination of customizability and procgen.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 7

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 1/27/2021 1:01:58 PM

BlueTemplar

Posts: 887
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: ramnblam

Isn't the reason for this being the case to randomize what the player gets? Just like the tech you can't predict what you're going to get so you have to adjust and make do just like with resources and terrain.

There are different kinds of Randomness:
- The one where you roll a 1D6.
- the one where you throw a dart, while blindfolded, without even knowing if there is something to hit in front of you.

OOB feels like the later.

And this might be the main issue, isn't it ?

Unlike for Model Types or Techs, we don't have an in-game tree for OOBs, only a list hidden in the Reports !

So of course it's hard to understand even the currently discovered and operationalized OOBs !

But yeah, not being able to see non-discovered OOBs (unlike it is for Model Types or Techs) makes it even worse to figure out.
And ESPECIALLY to figure out how many OOBs you've unlocked for discovery and how exactly you are going to screw yourself by operationalizing specific OOBs into reducing the chances of discovering specific other OOBs.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 8

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 1/27/2021 3:22:51 PM

LarryBurstyn

Posts: 76
Joined: 6/11/2019
Status: offline

Another thing is that OOB's should be tied to what tech item you discovered. Discovering a unit type (like medium tanks) and being unable to effectively build any because you don't have a OOB to use medium tanks is kind of rough...You should get a bonus for finding an OOB that uses that item.

(in reply to BlueTemplar)

Post #: 9

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 1/27/2021 3:34:24 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LarryBurstyn

Another thing is that OOB's should be tied to what tech item you discovered. Discovering a unit type (like medium tanks) and being unable to effectively build any because you don't have a OOB to use medium tanks is kind of rough...You should get a bonus for finding an OOB that uses that item.

You can still make a Independant Medium tank Unit. And for offense, the Independant units and the OOB the includes it are just about equivalent.
1 Unit of 100 Tanks in 1 independant unit is equal to 20 tanks in each of the 5 Units of a Formation on offense.

The main advantage to having specific models dispersed throughout the Formation (200 RPG/Unint instead of 1000 RPG in a Independant) is defensive in nature. If it is disperes throught your Formation, the enemy can never attack without meeting one instance.

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 1/27/2021 3:35:09 PM >

(in reply to LarryBurstyn)

Post #: 10

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 1/27/2021 3:42:04 PM

BlueTemplar

Posts: 887
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline

I wouldn't put it as categorically, you can always make a cheap 50% brigade, and attach to it 2 huge tank groups and a tank commander.
Though I am unsure of what are the limitations/penalties on attached Independent Formations / Battlegroups?

(in reply to LarryBurstyn)

Post #: 11

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 1/27/2021 7:03:13 PM

Soar_Slitherine

Posts: 426
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline

There is a limit on what size of independent formation you can attach to an OHQ based on the OHQ formation's size - regiments can't be attached to brigades and divisions can't be attached to brigades or corps. Battlegroups can go under any OHQ regardless of size, but suffer -15% to their attack values and are limited to a maximum of 50 subunits each (divisions can go up to 60 normally, 120 if they include transports).

(in reply to BlueTemplar)

Post #: 12

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 1/27/2021 7:51:43 PM

BlueTemplar

Posts: 887
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline

Hmm, this is worse commander-wise, but where the units in "fake brigades" are concerned, you can then manually reduce them to 3 subunits each, and use the remainders for *another* "fake brigade", and so on...

(in reply to Soar_Slitherine)

Post #: 13

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 1/27/2021 8:10:54 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

I wouldn't put it as categorically, you can always make a cheap 50% brigade, and attach to it 2 huge tank groups and a tank commander.
Though I am unsure of what are the limitations/penalties on attached Independent Formations / Battlegroups?

You can at tops attach 2 Independant Units to any OHQ. And it must be of the same size or less.
The big reason to have stuff under the same SHQ is the Encirclement Bonus . That one is halved if multiple OHQ are involved (or the OHQ itself is part of the attack). Encirclement is the main reason to use larger formations as well - more soldiers und the same OHQ, with that juicy bonus that can equal any entrechment.

Battlegroups suffer a flat -15% Attack penalty, unless it is GR gear.
Battlegroups below 3 subunits also suffer a HP penalty, so expecilly GR groups should be padded up to at least 3 subunits. 5 might be better.

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 1/27/2021 8:11:45 PM >

(in reply to BlueTemplar)

Post #: 14

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 1/27/2021 8:41:48 PM

BlueTemplar

Posts: 887
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline

Why 5 ? It will have an effect if they happen to lose a sub-unit during mid-fight ? (I like multiples of 3, for further splitting, and Cult Feats.)

As for the encirclement, I never said that you couldn't use those "fake brigades" as cannon fodder !

(Though the losses on the AI turn might not be worth it ?)

Also, I'm pretty sure that the encirclement bonus is NOT halved when attacking with their OHQ, as I already used fresh (1 OHQ + 5 starting units) formations : they are just big enough to encircle by themselves, AND give that nice fat 200% bonus !?

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 15

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 1/27/2021 10:09:21 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

Why 5 ? It will have an effect if they happen to lose a sub-unit during mid-fight ? (I like multiples of 3, for further splitting, and Cult Feats.)

As for the encirclement, I never said that you couldn't use those "fake brigades" as cannon fodder !
(Though the losses on the AI turn might not be worth it ?)

Also, I'm pretty sure that the encirclement bonus is NOT halved when attacking with their OHQ, as I already used fresh (1 OHQ + 5 starting units) formations : they are just big enough to encircle by themselves, AND give that nice fat 200% bonus !?

Why pad GR battlegroups to 5? So they can loose two, without suffering the HP penalty or needing instant reinforcements.
Admitedly, it can be beneficial to send in as few units as possible. Every attack that fails will cause a immedaite counter-attack.
If you send something like a GR tank against a group of Mutants, they mutants attacks will all trigger counter-attacks. And quickly the counter-attacks will overshadow the tansk regular attacks in damage dealt.

There is no such thing as a "fake brigade". There are a bunch of indepedannt units, wich just happen to operate in roughly the same area. I think reducing their numbers below the baseline will tag them as Taskforce, incuring the Taskforce penalties, meaning they are a lot less able to actually defend the hex.

As for the encirclement bonus being halved if the OHQ is part of the attack: The rule has been consistently changing over time. While the source of the halving is propably a bug (the Combat Brigardes are under the same OHQ. However the OHQ itself is not under itself - but directly under the SHQ), it does make sense that a OHQ has issues coordinating a attack if it is actively marching on the enemy.

(in reply to BlueTemplar)

Post #: 16

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 1/27/2021 10:30:39 PM

AgentFransis

Posts: 64
Joined: 1/10/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

it does make sense that a OHQ has issues coordinating a attack if it is actively marching on the enemy.

Eh, the actual HQ is just the commander and his staff. The subunits directly under the OHQ are an HQ "bodyguard" or something like that, or a brigade reserve if you will. Attacking with the OHQ just means committing those units to combat. It's not like the commander is personally riding his jeep and shooting his pistol at the enemy.

The whole concept is kind of gamey anyway. I'm not familiar with any real world OOB where a brigade HQ has several standard companies directly under it and follow it around at all times. When HQs have units directly under them it's usually either heavy artillery or special support units that are assigned to subformations as needed.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 17

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 1/28/2021 6:22:25 AM

Pratapon51

Posts: 100
Joined: 6/28/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AgentFransis

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

it does make sense that a OHQ has issues coordinating a attack if it is actively marching on the enemy.

Eh, the actual HQ is just the commander and his staff. The subunits directly under the OHQ are an HQ "bodyguard" or something like that, or a brigade reserve if you will. Attacking with the OHQ just means committing those units to combat. It's not like the commander is personally riding his jeep and shooting his pistol at the enemy.

The whole concept is kind of gamey anyway. I'm not familiar with any real world OOB where a brigade HQ has several standard companies directly under it and follow it around at all times. When HQs have units directly under them it's usually either heavy artillery or special support units that are assigned to subformations as needed.

Except sometimes he actually does, which is a handy way to dispose of those endless Cap I faction candidates.

(in reply to AgentFransis)

Post #: 18

RE: Too many Orders of Battle - 1/28/2021 11:38:05 AM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AgentFransis

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

it does make sense that a OHQ has issues coordinating a attack if it is actively marching on the enemy.

Eh, the actual HQ is just the commander and his staff. The subunits directly under the OHQ are an HQ "bodyguard" or something like that, or a brigade reserve if you will. Attacking with the OHQ just means committing those units to combat. It's not like the commander is personally riding his jeep and shooting his pistol at the enemy.

The whole concept is kind of gamey anyway. I'm not familiar with any real world OOB where a brigade HQ has several standard companies directly under it and follow it around at all times. When HQs have units directly under them it's usually either heavy artillery or special support units that are assigned to subformations as needed.

A Company according to Nato classification is 30-250 Men.
A Batallion is 300-1000 Men, or 2-6 Companies.
So the HQ unit is like a really small Batallion of 2 rather large companies.

But the ingame OHQ is also running 5 - rather then the common 3 - Combat Units. So a larger amount of staff for coordination makes sense.
In the end, every radio operator and doctor will pick up a gun if the OHQ is attacked or attacking, easily getting you up to 500 men combat strenght. But also severely degrading the HQ#s ability to do the HQ job.

(in reply to AgentFransis)

Post #: 19