RE: Ground combat? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Coming Soon] >> Distant Worlds 2



Message

Jorgen_CAB -> RE: Ground combat? (2/13/2022 12:00:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spidey

A thing to consider is that space supremacy would be extremely telling on any ground force fighting against it. Massing troops would be difficult without it being visible from above in one way or another, and ships that can target other ships moving at space travel speeds can probably also target effectively stationary targets on a planet. Fighting against that would be like trying to have an infantry fight in Red Alert, except one side has tesla coil coverage and one side don't. Zap. Zap. Zaaap.

It would not really be a stand up fight. But without that space supremacy, the attackers would have a hard time. It isn't easy digging out every last entrenched defender. There's the question of using civilians as hostages for good behavior but that one is culturally sensitive. Will the attacker be willing to do such a thing? Will the defender care? And of course this doesn't work if the attackers are famously inhospitable owners, meaning all who surrender are going to become food. Or get sent to the LeQuint Dickey Mining Company.


I think it is impossible to tell how difficult it would be... anything on the ground possibly also could shoot at anything in space and have access to more energy and thus very tough shields and weapons etc... so it all comes down to whatever technobabble side of the coin you want to have the advantage.

It would not be terribly difficult to make up any story reason for why invasion would be very hard or vice versa.

In general I'm more interested of the in game mechanics and making troops matter for defending a planet, but then again I can be completely wrong.

From my point of view I rather build ships to defend my planets than troops and only build troops for offensive actions, more or less, at least things seem that to me from what I have seen.



Spidey -> RE: Ground combat? (2/13/2022 1:25:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spidey

A thing to consider is that space supremacy would be extremely telling on any ground force fighting against it. Massing troops would be difficult without it being visible from above in one way or another, and ships that can target other ships moving at space travel speeds can probably also target effectively stationary targets on a planet. Fighting against that would be like trying to have an infantry fight in Red Alert, except one side has tesla coil coverage and one side don't. Zap. Zap. Zaaap.

It would not really be a stand up fight. But without that space supremacy, the attackers would have a hard time. It isn't easy digging out every last entrenched defender. There's the question of using civilians as hostages for good behavior but that one is culturally sensitive. Will the attacker be willing to do such a thing? Will the defender care? And of course this doesn't work if the attackers are famously inhospitable owners, meaning all who surrender are going to become food. Or get sent to the LeQuint Dickey Mining Company.


I think it is impossible to tell how difficult it would be... anything on the ground possibly also could shoot at anything in space and have access to more energy and thus very tough shields and weapons etc... so it all comes down to whatever technobabble side of the coin you want to have the advantage.

It would not be terribly difficult to make up any story reason for why invasion would be very hard or vice versa.



Anything in space can move. Anything on the ground with access to a lot of power would have to be static. Since we know that DW sensors can detect if enemy derelicts are powering up, it seems plausible enough that they might also notice enormous power fluctuations on a planet, meaning such weapons might even be visible from space before they start shooting.

It's a bit like modern day fixed positions versus stealth bombers, cruise missiles, and mobile artillery. The fixed position, once discovered, is at a massive disadvantage. This disadvantage would be significantly bigger if the fixed position is at the bottom of a gravity well and the mobile attacker is up on top. Just drop rocks all day from way outside the range of anything on the ground. It's not like the planet or the fixed installation can dodge.

So I don't think it's really fair to reduce the space supremacy advantage to just being a matter of technobabble. I don't think anyone could possibly come up with remotely reasonable technobabble that actually works this out to be a defender's advantage when the attacker has space supremacy. Constructing single scenarios would of course be possible. Plenty of ways to do that too. But in the general case, the ground force that has space fleet support will have a massive advantage over one that doesn't, even if the one without has the home field advantage.

I think the bigger problem lies in actually holding the planet without mass extermination and planet-wide devastation. It would take decades of work to overcome the negative bias towards invaders. I imagines that the natives of remotely aggressive species would indeed go native again the moment the occupation forces ship out. Can those occupation forces even hold without the support of space forces?

And that pushes the problem towards also being affected by cultural factors. How is the attacker's faction perceived? What are the defenders like? If the Liir or the Phidi were to drop out of warp tomorrow and insist on living in our plastic-filled oceans then I'm not sure it would take that much for me to welcome our new dolphin or sea horse overlords. But the Boskarans? Who would surrender to them and actually stay surrendered?



Spidey -> RE: Ground combat? (2/13/2022 1:35:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

In general I'm more interested of the in game mechanics and making troops matter for defending a planet, but then again I can be completely wrong.

From my point of view I rather build ships to defend my planets than troops and only build troops for offensive actions, more or less, at least things seem that to me from what I have seen.


I mostly did the same in DWU. Having a bunch of troops just sitting there to defend a planet never really appealed to me. But it might have been different if I was having issues keeping enemy troop ships from landing troops in the first place. That was usually not the case.

But again, the idea of letting an enemy fleet have access to my planet with my people on it and just holding it on the ground regardless of what they're sending my way strikes me as so alien. I have vague recollections of doing it a few times, but just having troopers sit around was just never a good investment. The same thing applies to ships, really. No point to having big garrison fleets that defend against non-existent threats.




Pocus -> RE: Ground combat? (2/13/2022 4:49:45 AM)

Garrisons generated from population are probably part of the answer to your question. The game now provides free troops defending each planet. I don't see them as useless civilians taking up (useless) light weaponry against professional soldiers invading, but more like local 2nd line troops. They are now free. You, the player, only pay and play reaction forces that can intervene to strengthen the defense (if you manage to pass the blockade?) or counter-invade if the planet falls.



zgrssd -> RE: Ground combat? (2/13/2022 6:50:42 AM)

That the enemy could hit you is irrelevant if the enemy does not hit you, for fear of colatteral damage.
I think bombadment hurts the enemy more then the ally. But using Bombardment lowers your reputatio - unless used on a low reputation enemy.
And you get a colatteral damage free +25% just for having space superiority.

Always ask yourself how far up the Escalation ladder you are willing to rise:
https://youtu.be/XgN5yq362_s

As the video points out, people have been espousing that infantry warfare and naval invasions would be "a thing of the past" for:
- cannons
- tanks
- airforces
- the atom bomb
And they have been wrong 100% of the time. Planetary Invasions will not be a exception.



Jorgen_CAB -> RE: Ground combat? (2/13/2022 9:32:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spidey
Anything in space can move. Anything on the ground with access to a lot of power would have to be static. Since we know that DW sensors can detect if enemy derelicts are powering up, it seems plausible enough that they might also notice enormous power fluctuations on a planet, meaning such weapons might even be visible from space before they start shooting.

It's a bit like modern day fixed positions versus stealth bombers, cruise missiles, and mobile artillery. The fixed position, once discovered, is at a massive disadvantage. This disadvantage would be significantly bigger if the fixed position is at the bottom of a gravity well and the mobile attacker is up on top. Just drop rocks all day from way outside the range of anything on the ground. It's not like the planet or the fixed installation can dodge.

So I don't think it's really fair to reduce the space supremacy advantage to just being a matter of technobabble. I don't think anyone could possibly come up with remotely reasonable technobabble that actually works this out to be a defender's advantage when the attacker has space supremacy. Constructing single scenarios would of course be possible. Plenty of ways to do that too. But in the general case, the ground force that has space fleet support will have a massive advantage over one that doesn't, even if the one without has the home field advantage.

I think the bigger problem lies in actually holding the planet without mass extermination and planet-wide devastation. It would take decades of work to overcome the negative bias towards invaders. I imagines that the natives of remotely aggressive species would indeed go native again the moment the occupation forces ship out. Can those occupation forces even hold without the support of space forces?

And that pushes the problem towards also being affected by cultural factors. How is the attacker's faction perceived? What are the defenders like? If the Liir or the Phidi were to drop out of warp tomorrow and insist on living in our plastic-filled oceans then I'm not sure it would take that much for me to welcome our new dolphin or sea horse overlords. But the Boskarans? Who would surrender to them and actually stay surrendered?


In general I agree with you, you would have to stop the opponent in space with really tough ground to space weapons and satellites in space so they can't even get close to the planet. A planet probably would have thousand if not million times more energy available for shields and weapons if they so choose you use them.. And as I said... you can technobabble any solution to any problem.

But as I said generally I agree with you...



Jorgen_CAB -> RE: Ground combat? (2/13/2022 10:01:27 AM)

The thing that I don't like with how the units are balanced is that you have some units that are way more powerful when they attack and very weak when they defend.

First of that is impossible... there is no way a unit can ever be better when attack than defending.... they can very well attack as part of their defence, as any good defender would do. It really does not work like this in real life as the game present defence/attack strength. There will always be a benefit to the defending side no matter what forces you select to use. Some forces will naturally be better at attacking, but that is very different.

Any way... the current unit balance means you want your armoured and special forces units floating around in space. Wait for the opponent to land on the planets with their armoured forces and take out your militia.... then you land your forces and take them out having all the advantages.

You avoid the planet being bombarded, you attack their units when they are the weakest and you are the strongest, they don't get benefit of militia helping them, you might even get help from the locals.

I'm mostly concerned about AI being held back from building heaps of ground units for no good reasons given that ground units seem perfectly worthless to use rather than having your armoured units in space ready to simply counter strike, or just more space ships to stop them drooping the troops in the first place.

If you invade an opponent I get that you need some form of occupation force, that is different. You need troops there to stop the planet from rebelling. Then there is a valid reason to build troops to defend the planet. But once the population is assimilated you don't need those troops there anymore.

One single infantry unit is roughly the cost of half up to one frigate in terms of maintenance. Who in their right mind would use a static infantry unit that can do pretty much nothing versus something as versatile as a frigate. Unless you need troops on the ground to suppress the population then ground troops are pretty useless unless you want to invade someone. Thus the only really good troops are those with a good attack value, defence values are almost meaningless.

I will probably try this as soon as I get my hands on the game and if this is true I will come back an complain a bit more about it if true... [;)]

As I said before... for there being any reason to defend anything the cost in resources doing so must be at least six time of not more efficient than attacking, otherwise there is no real point defending anything on the ground in the first place at all. It also have to be way cheaper than moving spaceship around in space.

I think that a game like Aurora 4X have a really good balance here as invading a world is a huge undertaking in resources versus the resources you need to defend them, both with ground troops and space to orbit weapons. Attacking a fully fortified world in that game is almost impossible (if you are close to equal in economic strength), you would have to blockade it for decades first so their units become out of date and they lack the resources to upgrade or something. Another thing, there also is the type of resources used, ground forces in general (in Aurora 4x) don't use the same basic resources as what you need to build your space fleets, so you can afford to build both. As long as you have the wealth to support it, ground troops are usually not that expensive in wealth cost in that game either.



zgrssd -> RE: Ground combat? (2/13/2022 10:25:04 AM)

quote:

The thing that I don't like with how the units are balanced is that you have some units that are way more powerful when they attack and very weak when they defend.

First of that is impossible... there is no way a unit can ever be better when attack than defending.... they can very well attack as part of their defence, as any good defender would do. It really does not work like this in real life as the game present defence/attack strength. There will always be a benefit to the defending side no matter what forces you select to use. Some forces will naturally be better at attacking, but that is very different.

WW1 would be to differ. WW2 also has something to say about that.

Quite regularly the British Mark1-5 had massive success on the attack. But once the counterattack hit, they were deathtraps. They were quickly abandoned. And in fact so many were captured, that all demand for reverse engineering was met and the germans started fielding units of captured biritish tanks.

The best way to defend with a Tank in WW2 was to dig in. Quite literally dig in at Kurks.
If you wanted those kinds of weapons in a defensive role, you just got the gun on a carrier rather then mounting it on a harder to hide, easier to hit, pointlessly mobile platofrm.



Jorgen_CAB -> RE: Ground combat? (2/13/2022 10:35:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

The thing that I don't like with how the units are balanced is that you have some units that are way more powerful when they attack and very weak when they defend.

First of that is impossible... there is no way a unit can ever be better when attack than defending.... they can very well attack as part of their defence, as any good defender would do. It really does not work like this in real life as the game present defence/attack strength. There will always be a benefit to the defending side no matter what forces you select to use. Some forces will naturally be better at attacking, but that is very different.

WW1 would be to differ. WW2 also has something to say about that.

Quite regularly the British Mark1-5 had massive success on the attack. But once the counterattack hit, they were deathtraps. They were quickly abandoned. And in fact so many were captured, that all demand for reverse engineering was met and the germans started fielding units of captured biritish tanks.

The best way to defend with a Tank in WW2 was to dig in. Quite literally dig in at Kurks.
If you wanted those kinds of weapons in a defensive role, you just got the gun on a carrier rather then mounting it on a harder to hide, easier to hit, pointlessly mobile platofrm.


Misuse of a specific equipment in a specific scenario is not really much proof of that to be honest. I'm talking about strategic use of forces, not tactical applications of them.



zgrssd -> RE: Ground combat? (2/13/2022 6:49:23 PM)

quote:

Misuse of a specific equipment in a specific scenario is not really much proof of that to be honest.

How do you "missuse" a tank?
How does that constitute missuse of a tank?
Those old tanks did walking speed - on good ground. Of which there was none in the reality of warfare.
When infantry attacks from any direction without a convenient sightport and machinegun, it was a actuall metal coffin.
A immobile tank is a speedbump for infantry and other tanks.

If I want to defend, I could get 1 Tiger II tank for 321,500 Reichsmark or 10 (ten!) 8.8 cm Pak 43 for 260,000 RM.
In case you wonder, that is the same gun.

Tanks do not defend. They are wasted on it. They propably just tell the enemy where your ambush is.
Whatever room there is to counterattack during planetary defense is covered by the +25% "Armored Defense" bonus you got for having a Tank in DW1. I would asume it exists in DW2 as well.



Jorgen_CAB -> RE: Ground combat? (2/13/2022 7:32:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

Misuse of a specific equipment in a specific scenario is not really much proof of that to be honest.

How do you "missuse" a tank?
How does that constitute missuse of a tank?
Those old tanks did walking speed - on good ground. Of which there was none in the reality of warfare.
When infantry attacks from any direction without a convenient sightport and machinegun, it was a actuall metal coffin.
A immobile tank is a speedbump for infantry and other tanks.

If I want to defend, I could get 1 Tiger II tank for 321,500 Reichsmark or 10 (ten!) 8.8 cm Pak 43 for 260,000 RM.
In case you wonder, that is the same gun.

Tanks do not defend. They are wasted on it. They propably just tell the enemy where your ambush is.
Whatever room there is to counterattack during planetary defense is covered by the +25% "Armored Defense" bonus you got for having a Tank in DW1. I would asume it exists in DW2 as well.


I know my WW2 and 1 pretty well as I'm well versed in it... I still am not talking about tactical application or misuse of said equipment. It also does not matter how many anti-tank guns you have if they are not where the enemy attack is, the tank can be in reserve and respond to an attack the more immobile guns can't... so you can't compare the cost of ten anti-tank guns with one tank, they simply do different things. Both is equally useful in defence but in different ways.

It is more operational level use of forces we talk about anyway, such as the Russian army defending against the Germans in WW2 without their armoured forces in 1941 to 1943... that would not have gone so well... likewise the German defence of the Russian offensive from 1943 to 1945 would have collapsed pretty fast with no armoured forces.

That is... armoured forces is as valuable and important in defence as they are on offence.

The French did not loose against the German forces based on their tanks being bad they really were not that bad, they lost because they did not understand mobile warfare at that time and their army in general was in shambles.

Armoured (mechanised or mobile) forces used in defence as pillboxes only happen in desperation, usually if outnumbered and mobility is hampered by say air-force or the like, or by incompetent leadership. In defence mobility is as important as it is on offence if you are able to use it. The Russians use mobile and elastic defence to good effect, especially later in the war when they had more and better mechanised units and experience.

In the real world armoured or mechanised units are as valuable on defence as they are on offence... it just is too expensive to use armoured or mechanised units everywhere and you want to concentrate your best troops to overwhelm the opponent where they are weak, that is why armoured mobile forces are so good and why lighter forces are important too. If an army or country could afford to armour all their troops they would, it simply is not economically sound to do that. Obviously there are areas where armoured forces are not suitable, but that is equally true on both offence and defence in that case.



Pocus -> RE: Ground combat? (2/14/2022 4:22:12 AM)

I was going to ask what is the comparative upkeep cost of a basic ground unit vs a small(ish) ship. Indeed, if 2 infantry units cost as much as a frigate, this does not bode well for the future of planetary defense.



Jorgen_CAB -> RE: Ground combat? (2/14/2022 7:24:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pocus

I was going to ask what is the comparative upkeep cost of a basic ground unit vs a small(ish) ship. Indeed, if 2 infantry units cost as much as a frigate, this does not bode well for the future of planetary defense.


The combination of ground units that have much better attack value than defence and the fact that ground defence is too expensive versus ship maintenance certainly seem like it.

Of course we are all just theorising right now, but I'm pretty sure this will be the case.

Especially if you are playing a more peaceful faction that don't invade planets much you are probably almost never going to build any infantry units at all. Only armoured and special forces units and those you probably only have when there is an actual war and a few just in case.

Maybee some infantry early on to defend against pirate raids, but that is all.



zgrssd -> RE: Ground combat? (2/14/2022 11:52:12 AM)

quote:

It is more operational level use of forces we talk about anyway, such as the Russian army defending against the Germans in WW2 without their armoured forces in 1941 to 1943... that would not have gone so well... likewise the German defence of the Russian offensive from 1943 to 1945 would have collapsed pretty fast with no armoured forces.

That is... armoured forces is as valuable and important in defence as they are on offence.

A Tank Army is priarily Tanks and supporting forces.
A Infantry Army is primarily Infantry and supproting forces.

Whatever limited use there is for the other weapon typein the formation, it is already integrated and part of the overall stats.



Jorgen_CAB -> RE: Ground combat? (2/14/2022 12:32:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

A Tank Army is priarily Tanks and supporting forces.
A Infantry Army is primarily Infantry and supproting forces.

Whatever limited use there is for the other weapon typein the formation, it is already integrated and part of the overall stats.


That is my point... one tank army attacking another tank army then the one defending will have a pretty huge advantage. In real life you generally consider that you need a 3:1 strength parity to win in such a situation.

Have you every played a serious WW2 game, say War in the East where it was easy to attack an armoured corp, no... they are usually way stronger than an infantry corp, even in defence.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Ground combat? (2/14/2022 1:21:11 PM)

The overall balance in terms of attack vs. defense and the cost of an equivalent planetary defense vs. equivalent number of ships is similar to DW1. If anything, I think it's a bit easier to defend in DW2 than in DW1 as the planetary defense units are somewhat more effective and while you lose the ability for one small/medium spaceport to defend an entire planet, you gain a variety of new planetary facilities that can help as well as still having access to defensive bases. Early on, it's pretty easy to invade and conquer a relatively small world or border colony. Once you get to the mid-game and there is time and tech to build up defenses, it's much harder and more costly to conduct a successful invasion.

However, because troop transports are built to get to the planet, unless you have a very strong defense, some troops will get to the surface. You need your own troops when that happens because any space-only defense can be circumvented to a degree by a strong and dedicated foe.

Regards,

- Erik



Erik Rutins -> RE: Ground combat? (2/14/2022 1:25:45 PM)

Beyond the fact that similar balance did not seem to be a concern in DW1, I think a key part of the DW2 mechanics that's being completely missed here is the new Evasion stat, which acts as damage reduction for units. This did not exist in DW1 and makes armor tougher relative to infantry than the attack/defense strength values may indicate. Armor units have 50% evasion against Infantry. Infantry has 25% evasion against Armor. Infantry has no evasion against other infantry. Armor has no evasion against other armor.

Regards,

- Erik




zgrssd -> RE: Ground combat? (2/14/2022 2:12:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Beyond the fact that similar balance did not seem to be a concern in DW1, I think a key part of the DW2 mechanics that's being completely missed here is the new Evasion stat, which acts as damage reduction for units. This did not exist in DW1 and makes armor tougher relative to infantry than the attack/defense strength values may indicate. Armor units have 50% evasion against Infantry. Infantry has 25% evasion against Armor. Infantry has no evasion against other infantry. Armor has no evasion against other armor.

Regards,

- Erik



Ah, good. I had seen the mechanic, but no values to put it into context.
That should nicely cover all those considerations.
With the lower base attack, infantry propably can not hurt Tanks a lot. You need tanks to counter enemy tank. While not a perfect simulation, it is propably the closest we can get to on a absraction level that high above [:)]

I asume there is still the "Armored defense" and "Armored Offense" +25% for either side? Or were they subsumed by this Evasion mechanic?



Nabobalis -> RE: Ground combat? (2/14/2022 3:20:29 PM)

Will we see the icons being stacked or group in future?



Erik Rutins -> RE: Ground combat? (2/14/2022 3:37:38 PM)

Nabobalis,

Our eventual second pass on the ground combat UI will likely see something like that, but not at release. You typically need/have fewer individual units now than in DW2, so it's not quite as cluttered, but in the late game it can still get to pretty large armies with a lot on each individual planet. It's easy to tell the types apart, but can become harder to see a particular individual unit.

Regards,

- Erik



Jorgen_CAB -> RE: Ground combat? (2/14/2022 3:50:49 PM)

As I said... we are acting Armchair generals here... it remains to be seen.

I actually think the issue did exist in DW1 as well... it was more effective to build more ships than defend with troops on the ground and invade rather than defend there too.. but it remains to be seen.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Ground combat? (2/14/2022 4:03:07 PM)

The higher ground, in this case space, always will have some advantage. I think things end up similar to DW1 but with some additional options and gameplay considerations in the interaction between units and all the possible defense facilities. It's worth also noting that in DW2, until you get very good hyperdrives they have a pretty large accuracy issue, which results in attacking fleets having to jump in a bit farther from their targets for safety and making the final run to attack/bombard/invade on their sublight engines.



Jorgen_CAB -> RE: Ground combat? (2/14/2022 4:35:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The higher ground, in this case space, always will have some advantage. I think things end up similar to DW1 but with some additional options and gameplay considerations in the interaction between units and all the possible defense facilities. It's worth also noting that in DW2, until you get very good hyperdrives they have a pretty large accuracy issue, which results in attacking fleets having to jump in a bit farther from their targets for safety and making the final run to attack/bombard/invade on their sublight engines.


Yes... that is definitely an improvement over DW1 where it was quite easy to jump in and dump troops on a planet. I think that is quite a good balance change.

It also seem like you will have to gather the force above the planet in order to coordinate the drop so they don't drop in piece meal and that is also going to take time.



StormingKiwi -> RE: Ground combat? (2/14/2022 8:20:28 PM)

I think that is a ship or fleet setting that people haven't been using in the dropdowns, "invade immediately".

If not included, I think there should be an option for coordinated actions across fleets.

E.g. coordinated hyperjumps. Sins of a Solar Empire had that and that came out in 2008.



Nabobalis -> RE: Ground combat? (2/14/2022 9:06:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Nabobalis,

Our eventual second pass on the ground combat UI will likely see something like that, but not at release. You typically need/have fewer individual units now than in DW2, so it's not quite as cluttered, but in the late game it can still get to pretty large armies with a lot on each individual planet. It's easy to tell the types apart, but can become harder to see a particular individual unit.

Regards,

- Erik



Thanks for the update!



Pocus -> RE: Ground combat? (2/15/2022 3:57:33 AM)

What are the collateral damages expected when a world is taken over? If there is none or only minor ones, then a good strategy (which I believe is not very realistic, at least for democratic governments) would be "do not defend and invade back".
Now if some population is killed or there is a chance for each building that it is destroyed, I can see a value in defending all your colonies, even if it is a large burden to your treasury.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Ground combat? (2/15/2022 4:26:31 AM)

Population loss, facility damage and quality damage to the world can happen in any invasion. Multiple repeated invasions or counter-invasions can take a significant toll.



Pocus -> RE: Ground combat? (2/15/2022 10:15:03 AM)

Excellent then.



zgrssd -> RE: Ground combat? (2/15/2022 3:34:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

As I said... we are acting Armchair generals here... it remains to be seen.

I actually think the issue did exist in DW1 as well... it was more effective to build more ships than defend with troops on the ground and invade rather than defend there too.. but it remains to be seen.

I find it works totally different in DW1.

In DW1, one Spaceport - even a small one - could shoot down any transports that even looked at the planet funny.
You had to send in the fleet to kill the spaceports and defense stations, before you could even think about invading the planet.
Same with Pirates.

In DW2, the spaceport can only cover a small fraction of the planetary space. Any Escorts will propably be a few days out. But even if they shoot the transprots, there is a low chance they will actually force any of them to retreat. Nevermind destroy one of them before it deploys.

This is a particular issue for Pirate Raids as in the Stream Version. By the second they launched their pods, you can do nothign to change the outcome:
You can not recruit more troops.
No reinforcement troops or general transfer will reach in time.
Driving away the ship will do nothing.

As so many thematics, I had some ideas about it.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Ground combat? (2/15/2022 3:42:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
In DW1, one Spaceport - even a small one - could shoot down any transports that even looked at the planet funny.
You had to send in the fleet to kill the spaceports and defense stations, before you could even think about invading the planet.
Same with Pirates.


No, there were plenty of times in DW1 when a single spaceport could not stop all the troop transports.

quote:

In DW2, the spaceport can only cover a small fraction of the planetary space. Any Escorts will propably be a few days out. But even if they shoot the transprots, there is a low chance they will actually force any of them to retreat. Nevermind destroy one of them before it deploys.


A spaceport can end up covering about 2/3rds, then you have defensive bases and planetary facilities you can add as well. If you have a defensive fleet in the system, that will of course help a lot too. I've seen troop transports forced to retreat or destroyed quite often. Even in the preview videos I've seen invasions deterred by one spaceport and a defensive fleet.

quote:

This is a particular issue for Pirate Raids as in the Stream Version. By the second they launched their pods, you can do nothign to change the outcome:
You can not recruit more troops.
No reinforcement troops or general transfer will reach in time.
Driving away the ship will do nothing.


This is intended with pirate raids. You're typically looking at worlds with very few defenses in those cases and a pirate ship or two has an easy time dropping off some raiders. Later on, the pirates get destroyed if they try that, it's only an early game thing.

You can recruit more troops but yes it's a bit late if it's a quick raid that's already underway. In a prolonged battle on a large colony, especially one with recruitment/recovery bonuses, new troops can potentially enter the battle before it's over but it's best to prepare your defenses before an invasion.

Regards,

- Erik



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625