What's a good rule of thumb in field testing for upgrading troops,equipment (Full Version)

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



Message

ch53A/Dvet_slith -> What's a good rule of thumb in field testing for upgrading troops,equipment (7/28/2020 11:14:34 PM)

In a current game I've gotten my infantry up to 92% field testing, I'd like to upgrade to level 2 troops but research upgrades for them (weapon upgrades and personal armor) haven't changed. The choices available are the same as the basic line troop items. Do I wait for the upgraded small arms and personal armor to painstakingly appear or go and make a level 2 infantry troop in hopes of getting a better dice roll for bottom line infantry stats? or should I wait for a 100% in field testing before upgrading troops.



DasTactic -> RE: What's a good rule of thumb in field testing for upgrading troops,equipment (7/29/2020 1:01:37 AM)

I think it is more important to check your basic design stats first and then use field testing as a bit of a value add. I tend to keep anything with the basic designs over the average.

Go to MNG --> MODEL --> DESIGN --> ALL.
If the Structural Design is under 100 and the Base Design is under 85 then it may be worth building a new design early if you are struggling. Otherwise I wait for better equipment then upgrade the exisiting design.



lloydster4 -> RE: What's a good rule of thumb in field testing for upgrading troops,equipment (7/29/2020 2:31:42 AM)

I upgrade my infantry models frequently. Unlike vehicles, it's cheap and easy to upgrade existing formations.

Once field testing is above 80% on an infantry model, I'm definitely upgrading it.



Berks -> RE: What's a good rule of thumb in field testing for upgrading troops,equipment (7/29/2020 7:45:41 AM)

For infantry:

Infantry II - ASAP (Carbines are unlocked turn 1. Firepower goes from 50 to 75, which improves soft/hard attack/defence) You might get lucky and improve the weapon or armour rolls too.
Infantry III - Once you have Automatic Rifles and Padded Envirosuits.
Infantry IV - Ideally when you have Combat Armour, but usually 25-30 rounds after Infantry III.
Usually Infantry V when field testing is 80%+, or design a new model - Foot I - if I have Lasers available.

Field testing is only a small part of the overall puzzle, and you can catch up in later models. The value is capped at 120 + 10 * Model design. So Infantry IV have a maximum of 160.

Other Units:

Get the first model ASAP if you intend to use the unit type, then upgrade it when you get a new key tech (Cluster Bombs improve the killing power of Light Tanks and Artillery substantially, as an example).
You can upgrade a bit earlier if you have bad rolls or a high field testing value.

Just remember with non-infantry and especially armour, there is a huge cost in remaking and replacing the existing units. Plus the opportunity cost of putting those BP somewhere else.



CaptBeefheart -> RE: What's a good rule of thumb in field testing for upgrading troops,equipment (7/30/2020 7:58:30 AM)

I'm trying to figure out why not continue going up the ladder with model numbers (i.e. Infantry VII as opposed to Foot I). What does starting a new model line get you?

Cheers,
CB



demiare -> RE: What's a good rule of thumb in field testing for upgrading troops,equipment (7/30/2020 2:49:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berks

Get the first model ASAP if you intend to use the unit type, then upgrade it when you get a new key tech


Do you know about structural design roll? [:D]

If situation isn't dire, it's usually better to build a few models until you will get at least 100+ SR first (depend a lot of are you playing with slow/epic research of course).



zgrssd -> RE: What's a good rule of thumb in field testing for upgrading troops,equipment (7/30/2020 3:37:47 PM)

I think you need the basic rules of Unit design. Luckily I wrote them up:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4831079



Berks -> RE: What's a good rule of thumb in field testing for upgrading troops,equipment (7/30/2020 7:41:14 PM)

Hi CB,

Starting a new model line gives you a new roll on the structural design (between 70 and 130). You lose all the field testing though, so you might find your new model line is weaker initially.
Infantry V costs 330 BP vs Foot I costing 120BP. But I believe the cost of Foot II goes back to 30 BP (?)

So you have to weigh up the benefits. If you have a good structure roll, you might push on up the original line further.

Hi Demiare,

I know about the structural design roll. But OP asked for a rule of thumb. [8D]

I think 120 BP for a shot at new structure roll on a single unit type is expensive, and not to be done lightly.
Losing field testing is a consideration.
Plus the cost and time delays in making new models and replacing/scrapping old models.

That's why I advocate for only upgrading when you have a good new tech (note this includes stuff like high fuel efficiency or armour piercing value). Tech which is easier to get to, if you are spending less BP on new model designs [:D]



lloydster4 -> RE: What's a good rule of thumb in field testing for upgrading troops,equipment (7/30/2020 9:13:11 PM)

Structural design is a bit over-rated in my opinion; Base Design is more important. Re-rolling for higher S Design values is a good idea sometimes, but it quickly becomes very expensive. To each their own.

I'd also suggest fielding "prototypes". When you develop a new model, roll out a couple independent battalions and get some field testing. Go for mass deployment after you've worked out any initial design problems. This can save you a lot of resources and headache.



demiare -> RE: What's a good rule of thumb in field testing for upgrading troops,equipment (7/30/2020 9:18:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lloydster4

Structural design is a bit over-rated in my opinion; Base Design is more important.


Base design is VERY easy to grind (field testing up to ~50-60% with few prototype battalions is very easy to achieve).

Structural design instead is permanent. When you finally get light tanks with 125+ SD you will see the difference ;)

Yes, it's too expensive, but it's just because lack of polish. Seriously, game for me is more like a beta then retail version. In case of model design - IMHO a new model should drop prices for redesign to basic level so you will iterate a new model lines & upgrades to existing like IRL.

Plus you always able to cheat if want really it [:D]



lloydster4 -> RE: What's a good rule of thumb in field testing for upgrading troops,equipment (7/30/2020 10:16:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare
Yes, it's too expensive, but it's just because lack of polish.


That's absurd. Anything that isn't exactly to your tastes is unpolished? If it was easy and cheap to make perfectly designed models then everyone would do it and the entire system would become redundant.

Rolling 125+ S Design should be extremely rare. Like, 1 out of 100.



CaptBeefheart -> RE: What's a good rule of thumb in field testing for upgrading troops,equipment (7/31/2020 1:12:48 AM)

Thanks, gentlemen. I wasn't paying any attention to that aspect of the game. I figure if I want to move up from "Normal" difficulty I'd better start looking under the hood a bit more.

Cheers,
CB



demiare -> RE: What's a good rule of thumb in field testing for upgrading troops,equipment (7/31/2020 4:37:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lloydster4
That's absurd. Anything that isn't exactly to your tastes is unpolished? If it was easy and cheap to make perfectly designed models then everyone would do it and the entire system would become redundant.


You don't understand me at all. I don't want cheap new models. I want being tempted to try a new model instead perfecting existing one:
- Redesign cost is tied to exact model. If I have Soldiers V they will be much more expensive to redesign then Jaggers II.
- Each redesign IMHO should slowly (!) reduce cost of designing entirely new model.

Currently we have a single power-play option - grab a model, maybe roll once-twice more trying to get better structure and then max it base design via field testing. After it there is literally no reason to try a new model.

IMHO It's boring and this why I would change here. Hell, it was your post that maxing base design is more important then developing a new model. [:D]


quote:

ORIGINAL: lloydster4
Rolling 125+ S Design should be extremely rare. Like, 1 out of 100.


LOL. As usual average player do not understand statistics. [8|] 125+ is ~92% percentile for structural roll. So it's ~8% chance to get it. Rare, but happens. And much often then tier V leaders [:D].



lloydster4 -> RE: What's a good rule of thumb in field testing for upgrading troops,equipment (7/31/2020 4:04:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare
LOL. As usual average player do not understand statistics. [8|] 125+ is ~92% percentile for structural roll. So it's ~8% chance to get it. Rare, but happens. And much often then tier V leaders [:D].


I have an average understanding of statistics. Enough to know about probability distributions. Not all outcomes have an equal chance of occurring.

Lets say you throw two 6-sided dice. What's the probability that you roll an 11 or higher? By your logic the chance would be 18% (2/11), but it's actually 8% (1/12)

I enjoy your thoughts on the game, but honestly I struggle with your condescending tone.



demiare -> RE: What's a good rule of thumb in field testing for upgrading troops,equipment (7/31/2020 4:21:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lloydster4
Lets say you throw two 6-sided dice. What's the probability that you roll an 11 or higher? By your logic the chance would be 18% (2/11), but it's actually 8% (1/12)


No it will be ~8% (~ because I'd done a quick&dirty calculation without bothering with actual formulas and fractions[:D]) as there is three options that will satisfy you: 5-6, 6-5 and 6-6. Each roll is separated and unaffected by another.

I get your point, I'd completely forgot that Vic is using multiple dices in determination of structural design. Yes I was wrong about it, sorry for that.

Honestly? I'd so tired of unneeded* amount of random in this game so don't mind save/load to check my dices for next turn. This why I maybe a bit overestimating structural rolls. But again, if min-max, you really need to get it for a light tanks, as they're able to win the game alone... And if you will fail to do so you still have a medium tanks [:D]

*I can show a few examples about stupid events with stupidly high checks, but I'm sure you already saw them. IMHO it's entirely bad game design to provide governors with 160+ DC for skills they are not leveling during their work. It's so surprising to see random-based "sorry, you'd failed, go and eat penalty without any chances!" events in our time. Lol, Vic, you already stealthy "fixing" some "random" rolls - give me at least 5% chance to win in such events. >_< Nothing annoying me more in RNG-heavy games.

Hell, one of major sources of dices in games - AD&D have a critical rule. So you always have a small chance to win/lose. It's make game much more entertaining as you always have some hope. In SE? No, enjoy marauders & slave trader events >_<



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.09375