RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire



Message

KingHalford -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (5/28/2020 6:21:01 PM)

As an example of the above, in Das and Tortuga's current MP game, there's an occasion where Tortuga has a marauder unit surrounded with several regular units with 10 strength each. Now, he's being understandably cautious of the odds (losing a battle there might lose him the game) so he's looking at odds like 7:1 and saying "no, I'll wait". Now, there is the Hard difficulty modifier to consider but I think the odds calculation is counting that. So here you need to know the rules of what units work well in each situation: irregular units are about 50% less effective than regulars according to the manual, which means that Tortuga's units would very likely walk all over those marauders unless they were both very well dug in and had a high readiness. I forget now if that was the case but I remember thinking "I'd have taken those odds there".



Malevolence -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (5/28/2020 6:52:55 PM)

The game appears to have stacking and hex-side combat width penalties if too many units are used in an attack. This includes a penalty for poor shooter-target ratios.

Given that the detection rules and ui don't really provide a useful confidence interval, it becomes a more difficult decision. This is made all more painful to watch because one streamer/influencer epitomizes the strengths and the weaknesses of a George Meade.

Instead of simply providing a simple detection value, it would be better to give the player a confidence interval (based on detection) of the important strength values (the enemy's combat power).

EDIT: This isn't a knock on the developer. Clearly the game tries where it can. The UI practically screams at the player with flashing red lights when a leader is killed in action. However, players seem to miss the cues completely.



balto -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (5/28/2020 7:18:27 PM)

Hey Ben, thank you for that clarification. I am positive there are many of us that did not know this based on YouTube observations.

Malevolence.., the reference to George Meade - awesome!



KingHalford -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/4/2020 3:16:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: balto

Hey Ben, thank you for that clarification. I am positive there are many of us that did not know this based on YouTube observations.


Anytime sir!



GodwinW -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 2:28:37 PM)

Well as attacker you always have a penalty in that you need to close the gap (basically run over there while the dug in defenders can shoot at the approaching enemies). In Details you see this mentioned as a severe attack penalty the first 2 rounds for Infantry for example, as well as 'Breakthrough' which signifies the attackers are actually in a position to deal serious damage.

And then there's just the chance of 7:1 being 12,5% chance of losing. That's kind of close to a roll of a 6-sided die and rolling a 1, if you find that more clear. Would you risk a roll like that or wait and probably they retreat or attack themselves to death?

People are different. It's no problem if you always take the odds if they're 5:1 or more in favor. Everyone has their own style. I personally don't think Vic needs to change anything, it's clear enough.



WeaverofBrokenThreads -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 2:54:58 PM)

Artillery is used in direct attack, but I think they are always stuck on indirect fire mode, because their firepower remains the same. In the design window, indirect fire is its own mod% to soft attack, for example.

Back to the original question: Having mixed units is beneficial - especially artillery - because units will defend other units. Artillery never gets attacked unless the enemy gets a breakthrough result. For this reason, having independent artillery is not optimal; if they're directly engaged, it is likely that they are all dead.

On the topic of artillery: They get a lot of attacks per turn, and although they do not do a lot of damage without optimization techs, they can land some retreat or pinned hits which benefit you greatly.



Jdane -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 3:13:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WeaverofBrokenThreads

For this reason, having independent artillery is not optimal; if they're directly engaged, it is likely that they are all dead.


That's an excellent remark and food for thought.



springel -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 3:35:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jdane

quote:

ORIGINAL: WeaverofBrokenThreads

For this reason, having independent artillery is not optimal; if they're directly engaged, it is likely that they are all dead.


That's an excellent remark and food for thought.



But are the different rear area classes of units not shielded by front units of all the participating units? I didn't think there is a difference between 6 artillery plus 6 infantry whether they are from the same or from different units in a battle. I used my little militia artillery unit with very few shielding infantry for all my big attacks, and I never lost a gun. The artillery delivers quite a punch in the attack at the low level tech of the start.



Jdane -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 4:13:25 PM)

Good question.

In a militia regiment, there's already a mix of artillery and infantry that can screen it, so it does not shed very much light on the question. (And they can be broken through, I've just seen farmer militia riflemen reach the rear line and destroy 10 canons from my militia regiment.)

But in my current game, I found a Galactic Republic mobile shield that negated hits scored by the enemy against sub-units that belonged to other units entirely - the mobile shield is its own unit. But it might another system than the front / rear one. I'm assuming WeaverofBrokenThreads is speaking from experience and willing to take his word on this, but if I have the opportunity I'll try and look into it myself.



Malevolence -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 4:31:19 PM)

Having artillery is preferable to not having artillery.

Per section 5.12.3.7. (Operational Stats) of the manual, "Foot is mostly defensive, Soldiers on foot without ranged attack have their Soft and Hard Attack values divided by two."

Although the next paragraph is clumsily worded, it appears MG Units also get Hard Defense values cut in half as well.

I assume when the manual refers to ranged attack, it means models with RPG's (maybe?), guns (maybe?), howitzers, rockets, or missiles. The manual and game should use the words indirect fire or direct fire if that is what it means.

In any event, the issue is whether you can maneuver (i.e. move and shoot) your indirect fire artillery independently of direct fire forces. All other things being equal, with artillery locked inside a direct fire unit counter, you are sacrificing the flexibility to mass and the potential for economy of force.

For those reasons, I avoid units with artillery mixed inside a unit counter's TO&E.

If the OOB research offers artillery units I can maneuver, I am perfectly happy with that task organization instead (more so for the OHQ bonus). I tend to add non-recce units to OHQ's anyway.



Jdane -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 4:44:22 PM)

Sure, but operational considerations aside, the question the thread is hovering around now is : does front line troops in unit A provide protection to rear line troops in unit B which has no front line because it's pure rear line troops?

As in, if enemy rifle company C3 attacks artillery battery B6, do they get a field day or does rifle company A1 get in the middle?



Malevolence -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 4:47:12 PM)

Ah, sorry. Thought it was the OP.

I can't make heads or tails of the graphical combat screen.

[:D]

Do those squares represent distances? The bonus traits (e.g. commando, sniper, banner, etc.) seem to be at the edges.



Jdane -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 4:50:03 PM)

No, I believe squares are just placeholders for sub units.
And I fail to see the relevance of bonus traits here.
But you're right in that the answer probably rather lies in the detailed reports screen.



Malevolence -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 4:51:41 PM)

The traits are not the issue. The point is, is their placement on the combat screen's squares important. Does it reveal information about the UI to the player?



WeaverofBrokenThreads -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 4:56:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: springel

But are the different rear area classes of units not shielded by front units of all the participating units?



I believe they are. The stacks are always calculated on per turn basis, so, for example, if you force a unit to retreat, you'll get less overfire -mods%. I think the game doesn't care what unit belongs to what stack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

In any event, the issue is whether you can maneuver (i.e. move and shoot) your indirect fire artillery independently of direct fire forces. All other things being equal, with artillery locked inside a direct fire unit counter, you are sacrificing the flexibility to mass and the potential for economy of force.


Again, artillery will fire in direct fire. Having them outside of your TO&E should only be done if you cannot pay the cost of a proper army for the following reasons:

* There is no downside to having artillery in your table of organization.
* You can apply *insane* posture modifiers for artillery; rocket artillery with siege posture can reduce a city's defenders to rubble, even after the -50% mod to attacking in ruins.
* Mechanized artillery can *increase* your mobility. Motorized artillery will not slow you down either.
* It allows you to counter-attack enemy artillery, so you are not defenseless.
* Friendly units will defend your artillery. You basically get very high firepower/high attacks per round units that *cannot* be attacked and constantly deal damage.

Don't be a marauder. Use combined arms. You are better than those other scrubs on the planet - sorry, on YOUR planet... and in YOUR galaxy. *wink*

EDIT: The only time rear line units will be attacked, if there is a frontline, is if the enemy gets a break-through. Then they will have a field day.



Jdane -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 5:01:43 PM)

Okay, then what I should have understood earlier is that you were saying : it's a bad idea to leave an independent pure artillery unit alone in a hex because if they're attacked and can't repel the attackers with their firepower before they reach their lines, the canons servants are going to have a bad day.

But if you leave an infantry unit, for example, along with the arty in the same hex, the foot troops will try and defend the canons, although they're in a different unit. Am I correct?



WeaverofBrokenThreads -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 5:04:32 PM)

I believe so, yes. But the idea of having independent artillery is to "leave them behind the lines". Now you can generally avoid mishaps because the basic artillery is range-1, but in general, it is easy to "oops" the artillery and let an enemy go in and obliterate it.



Jdane -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 5:16:11 PM)

Okay, thanks for elaborating.



DeltaV112 -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 5:17:02 PM)

Something that might be a relevant interaction is that direct attacks into a hex generate large numbers of recon points during the combat. Indirect attacks don't and therefore if you have poor recon on the hex enemy units are going to be getting the hidden defender bonus to their hitpoints.



Malevolence -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 5:28:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WeaverofBrokenThreads
Don't be a marauder. Use combined arms. You are better than those other scrubs on the planet - sorry, on YOUR planet... and in YOUR galaxy. *wink*


I think we are crossing terms.

When I write "unit counter", I mean a separate, controllable counter on the map that has a TO&E (e.g. 500 troops with 500 bikes). The OOB contains some number of these unit counters of different types and the OHQ.

A "unit counter" filled with artillery is great. A counter mixed with direct and indirect fire models in its TO&E is not optimal in my opinion--although I could be wrong if combat resolution has some hidden attributes.

Militia Guards Regiment unit counters sometime begin with irregular artillery models mixed into the TO&E of their unit counters. I would rather use combined arms following the principles of mass and economy of force; direct and use that Irregular Artillery force as a separate battalion and in general support of any frontline force (e.g. my main effort).

However, As Jdane pointed out, the engagement model and screen used to resolve combat is a bit of mystery. I've looked at the log as well. It's interesting, but not particularly helpful.

To me, the following graphic just looks like a list. The position of artillery or other supporting elements are not modeled in front to rear echelons. Each attacks with their model's design attributes and modifiers.

[image]local://upfiles/34589/065F3478E65C4193913C1DD73D18DFBD.jpg[/image]



WeaverofBrokenThreads -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 5:48:24 PM)

I don't think we are crossing terms. I've pointed out, in (sort of) bullet points why you want artillery in your OOB. It is inevitable that if you take siege or storm OOB that you will have counters with artillery in them and that is in my opinion optimal. Independent artillery is useless. They are a liability more than they are a boon.

I understand the idea to separate arty from direct combat counters, because if you burn your AP on ranged attacks, then you don't have AP to attack. But in direct fire you are not wasting those APs. The arty will still fire and do it's job. It will force units into retreat and allow your infantry to break-through and wreak havoc.

If you want to blitzkrieg and mobility warfare, then what you want is independent mechanized arms. Light tanks, mechanized infantry, maybe even mechanized artillery - with decent armor they don't have to worry about being "caught in enemy territory". But artillery - the guns themselves - being independent are not very useful, even considering the fact that they let you attack things independently. At range 1, it is simply not worth it. You want missile and rocket artillery for this task.

I feel like this is way outside of the OPs topic, especially if I was to expound on the benefits of rocket/missile artillery, but the bottom point is this: Mixed units = very good.



GodwinW -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 6:04:59 PM)

EDIT: woops I missed a whole page of discussion... and I even commented on that 2nd page [&:]


To make things clear: Yes Balto if you attack Ranged with a mixed formation of artillery and non-artillery you lose the action points of the non-artillery units, thereby 'wasting' their turn.
But it might still be worth it to do, depends on the circumstances.
If you attack-move everything attacks and you get the most out of your AP for the unit but you may die, whereas artillery fire in the early game is safe (cannot be counterattacked).

DasTactic does have a video where he goes over the detailed battle report. I loved that he walked me through it it gave me great understanding of how the combat is modeled and I use it to check on things from time to time (why did that Biker Troop almost instantly retreat? for example).



Kamelpov -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 6:11:35 PM)

Well in my case I have expected 2 arty design : one light artillery for infantry corps build and one heavy for stand alone.
Cheap arty for mass unit as it can give a cheap counter barrage(infantry gun like german). while the expensive one is mainly for main assault direction.



GodwinW -> RE: Why would someone want the mixed units (6/9/2020 6:12:54 PM)

No the front and rear are not displayed visually however like DasTactic said on the previous page and what I alluded to on this page that's modeled by a very hefty attack penalty for attacking 'direct attack' troops in the first 2 rounds: that's closing the distance. Then you have 'Breakthrough' as a signifier that that troop broke through the defenses and can damage the rear line units.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6386719