RTGPete Posted July 5, 2006 Report Share Posted July 5, 2006 A player asked me about how ground combat works, and I wrote up a nice long answer to his question. Many of you already know this stuff, but I thought I'd copy-and-paste my response here for everybody's benefit: =============================================================================== Xxxxx, You could build 40 divisions of Imperial Army Infantry and nothing else. You'd have 40 div worth of offensive firepower, and 40 divisions of toughness for purposes of being defeated in combat. However, since each division type only covers a few TAC areas, you'd only have the opportunity to have positive TAC bonuses in those areas. For example, IA Infantry do not cover orbital bombardment as a TAC area. Therefore, even if you possessed the best orbital bombardment ground techs in the game, you'd get nothing in that TAC area because the IA Infantry can't do anything with that tech. If the enemy possessed even a modicum of orbital bombardment tech and at least one division present on his side of the battle that covered orbital bombardment, *he* would gain the edge in the orbital bombardment TAC area. You possessed better tech...but didn't bother to bring it along to the fight You would have been better off building 39 of those and 1 division that had any sort of rating in orbital bombardment. This logic continues as you want to cover more and more TAC areas - instead of building all of one division type, build a variety - it's better to have an Armor unit in there, to gain in the armor TAC category. It's better to have an Intelligence unit in there instead of one of those Infantry divisions because then you'd gain in yet another TAC area. You might gain in multiple TAC categories by adding a new division type to your force, because each division type does spread itself over several categories, and a new addition might add several that you didn't already have. For offensive purposes, an Infantry division and an Intelligence division both crank out the same offensive firepower, and defensively they are just as hard to kill as the other. The reason to build different types is to gain ground in the all-important TAC areas, which can dramatically shift the course of the battle. In wargaming terms, more divisions of any type give you base odds. TAC advantages give you odds shifts at the rate of 1 odds shift for every 10 TAC bonus points. Lifeform toughness makes your divisions worth more (or less) when it comes time to determine how many divisions you lose. Leaders, lifeform bonuses etc modify all of that. It's much, much easier to get some decent base odds by having enough divisions present and then shift it dramatically with TAC advantages - than it is to build ten times as many divisions. Of course, you still need to have enough divisions present to withstand enemy firepower. Favorable odds after TAC is taken into account increases the damage you dish out and reduces enemy return fire. In this way, combined arms is superior to building nothing but one division type. Example: neither side has any lifeform or leader bonuses, or anything else that might modify things. Both sides have every ground tech in the game (yep - even Razor Wire, heh). The attacker has 20 infantry divisions and the defender has 10 infantry divisions. The base odds would be 2:1. The attacker would have been better off taking 1 of those 20 infantry divisions out and replacing it with an armor division. He would gain a TAC advantage in the armor category. If he gained +10 in armor (10 is the maximum in any single category) the odds would shift from 2:1 to 3:1. That's a dramatic improvement for just switching out a single division. It's not like it really cost him anything extra - he just built an armor division instead of yet another infantry division. This process would continue as he swapped out infantry for other types and continued to gain TAC bonuses. The final odds from a combined arms assault force against an enemy comprised of a single division type would be far superior to the original 2:1. Pete =============================================================================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan Elder 'Keen Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 For offensive purposes, an Infantry division and an Intelligence division both crank out the same offensive firepower... To clarify, that is assuming equivalent tech ratings for each division, correct? So if you have a bunch of Small Arms techs completed but no additional Intelligence techs, the Infantry division then has more inherent firepower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WKE235 Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 Well, to help anyone out .. here's the battle from some time ago when I landed my expeditionary force on the NSI Homeworld. The one question I have is: What is that whole statement on Defending Divisions count as if 0.5 for casualty, Attacking as if 1.4 Divisions. How is THIS determined. You'll note my 10 beat his 7 divisions, I belive mainly due to all the Tac advantages I had. But this whole 1.4 and 0.5 and how it plays to the battle, I'm still confused. ** Table of Organization & Equipment: 31st Exo Force # 31 ** Concordium # 3833 1 Imperial Army Artillery 1 Imperial Guards Air Force 1 Imperial Guards Heavy Armor 1 Imperial Guards Heavy Artillery 1 Imperial Marines Air Force 1 Imperial Marines Armor 1 Imperial Marines Heavy Infantry 1 Imperial Marines Infantry 1 Imperial Marines Raiders 1 Imperial Marines Special Forces ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air Defense [600] Anti-Aircraft Artillery, Argus Laser Cannon Air Support [2800] Attack Helicopter, Helicopter Air To Air [3000] Jet Fighter Armor [4800] Armored Car, Light Tank Artillery [2000] Longbow, M82 Mortar Camouflage [800] Chameleon Cloak, Sneak Suit Chemical Weapons [3900] Blister Agents Chemical Munitions, Irritant Agents Chemical Munitions Close Combat [29000] Ablative Armor, Battle Dress, Battleaxe, Chainsaw, Club, Combat Environment Suit Dagger, Flak Jacket, Heavy Thermic Lance, M75 High Explosive Grenade Spear, Sword, Thermic Lance, Vibrosaw Heavy Weapons [700] Recoilless Rifle Intelligence [100] Smoke Projector Nuclear Weapons [12900] ESP Deluder, ESP Hallucinator, Howler Bomb, Hydrogen Bomb, Nuclear Bomb Screamer Bomb, Telekinetic Blaster, Thermo-Atomic Bomb Open Terrain [3200] Armored Car, Heavy Truck, Light Tank, Truck Small Arms [11200] Carbine, Harpoon Gun, Heavy Carbine, Heavy Shotgun, Laser Pistol Laser Rifle, Semiautomatic Pistol, Shotgun Special Weapons [400] ICE-1, ICE-2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Table of Organization & Equipment: Home Guard # 1 ** Napatha Solarum Imperium # 3535 1 Imperial Guards Heavy Air Defense 1 Imperial Guards Heavy Infantry 2 Imperial Guards Infantry 2 Imperial Guards Security 1 NBC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Air Defense [4000] Anti-Aircraft Artillery, Argus Laser Cannon, Blowpipe Surface-to-Air Missile Artillery [600] Longbow, M110 Mortar, M82 Mortar, Watchdog Counterbattery Radar Chemical Weapons [900] Irritant Agents Chemical Munitions Close Combat [15600] Ablative Armor, Battleaxe, Chainsaw, Club, Dagger, Flak Jacket M75 High Explosive Grenade, Spear, Sword, Vibrosaw Heavy Weapons [1300] Recoilless Rifle Intelligence [2200] Laser Communications Gear, Smoke Projector Nuclear Weapons [3300] Lightning Storm Generator, Nuclear Bomb Security [1000] Dartgun Small Arms [4000] Carbine, Harpoon Gun, Semiautomatic Pistol, Shotgun ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ** Tactical Rating Modifiers ** Air Defense Air Support Air to Air Ammunition Amphibious Antitank Aquatic -7 +10 +10 +0 +0 +0 +0 Armor Artillery Biodefense Bioweapons Broken Terrain Camouflage Chemdefense +10 +3 +0 +0 +0 +10 +0 Chemweapons Close Combat EW Engineering Environmental ESP Heavy Weapons +4 +1 +0 +0 +0 +0 -2 Intel Medical Nuc Defense Nuc Weapons Open Terrain Orbital Bmb Security -10 +0 +0 +3 +10 +0 -10 Small Arms Space Defense Special Wpns Subterranean Telekinesis Telepathics Transport +2 +0 +10 +0 +0 +0 +0 Unmodified odds: 6 828571 Total tactical combat odds shifts: 4 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attacking divisions counted as if they were 1 4 divisions each for casualty purposes Defending divisions counted as if they were 0 5 divisions each for casualty purposes Ground combat results Attacker losses: 1 Imperial Guards Air Force, 1 Imperial Guards Heavy Armor, 1 Imperial Marines Air Force, 1 Imperial Marines Armor, 1 Imperial Marines Heavy Infantry, 1 Imperial Marines Infantry, 1 Imperial Marines Special Forces Defender losses: <all divisions> The following equipment, obtained during the battle, may be ANZ'd by your military specialists at their leisure: Blowpipe Surface-to-Air Missile Laser Communications Gear Lightning Storm Generator M110 Mortar Watchdog Counterbattery Radar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 .........If he gained +10 in armor (10 is the maximum in any single category)....... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pete - If 10 is the maximum plus for a category, shouldn't the opposite be true - negative 10 being the max? I had a ground combat in which I had a (-30) in one category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTGPete Posted July 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 .........If he gained +10 in armor (10 is the maximum in any single category)....... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pete - If 10 is the maximum plus for a category, shouldn't the opposite be true - negative 10 being the max? I had a ground combat in which I had a (-30) in one category. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, Close Combat has a 30 maximum - the rest have 10, and it was my mistake not to mention that exception in my first note. Negative 10 means that the other side gained an advantage of +10, shifting the odds in his favor. Additionally it should be noted that some TAC categories are very hard to achieve. For instance, the mental power TAC areas require technology advances in those mental powers. This gives races with mental powers an instant advantage, and not an insignificant one, in every ground combat that they fight so long as they bring along at least one division that covers mental powers. The casualty numbers mean that each of your divisions are worth that much when it comes time to determine how many divisions you actually lose. A value of 1.0 means that if your side was scheduled to lose 10 divisions, you'd lose 10. If your divisions were worth 0.5 each, you would lose 20 instead. 2.0 would mean that you'd only lose 5. That value is derived primarily from your lifeform design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prospective Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 Pete, Since base odds are simply the number of attacking divisions divided by the number of defensive divisions (and do not take into account racial bonuses or leadership bonuses), is it correct to say that the "Unmodified odds" are the base odds plus and/or minus any racial bonses, leadership bonuses and the total TAC odds shifts? If true, then I think that the word "Unmodified" is somewhat confusing. If not true, then I'm still confused as to what the "Unmodified odds" are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magus666 Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 Maybe I'm miscalculating, or I'm missing something else here, but the numbers on that sample that WKE posted don't seem to add up. The attacking force - 31st Exo Force # 31 - had 10 units total The defending force - Home Guard # 1 - had 7 units total This should give a base odds of 10/7 or 1.428571:1 Total TAC rating modifiers were +44 in favor of the attacker, which should give a further 4.4:1 advantage. 1.4285771 + 4.4 = 5.828571 However, the "unmodified odds" are listed as 6.828571:1, so where did the attacker get a further +1 shift in his favor? Also too, the casualties seem...odd. This isn't based on any direct calculation since we dont know exactly how it works, but just a gut feeling. The attacker started with 10 units, and the defender started with 7 units. The attacker had a 6.828571:1 unmodified odds in his favor. At the end of the combat, the attacker lost 7 units, and the defender lost all (also 7 units). But, the attackers units (obviously a much more hardy race) count as 1.4 units for casualty purposes, while the defenders only counted as 0.5 units. So: The attacker lost 7 * 1.4 = 9.8 (10) unit equivalants meanwhile: The defender lost 7 * 0.5 = 3.5 (4) unit equivalants So, the attacker, with 6.828571:1 odds in his favor, effectively lost 2.5 units for each unit the defender lost (10:4) Does that sound right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali-t-akua Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 Maybe I'm miscalculating, or I'm missing something else here, but the numbers on that sample that WKE posted don't seem to add up. The attacking force - 31st Exo Force # 31 - had 10 units total The defending force - Home Guard # 1 - had 7 units total This should give a base odds of 10/7 or 1.428571:1 Total TAC rating modifiers were +44 in favor of the attacker, which should give a further 4.4:1 advantage. 1.4285771 + 4.4 = 5.828571 However, the "unmodified odds" are listed as 6.828571:1, so where did the attacker get a further +1 shift in his favor? Also too, the casualties seem...odd. This isn't based on any direct calculation since we dont know exactly how it works, but just a gut feeling. The attacker started with 10 units, and the defender started with 7 units. The attacker had a 6.828571:1 unmodified odds in his favor. At the end of the combat, the attacker lost 7 units, and the defender lost all (also 7 units). But, the attackers units (obviously a much more hardy race) count as 1.4 units for casualty purposes, while the defenders only counted as 0.5 units. So: The attacker lost 7 * 1.4 = 9.8 (10) unit equivalants meanwhile: The defender lost 7 * 0.5 = 3.5 (4) unit equivalants So, the attacker, with 6.828571:1 odds in his favor, effectively lost 2.5 units for each unit the defender lost (10:4) Does that sound right? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Magus, there is one point where I think your math is wrong. It states that the Attackers count for 1.4 divisions for casualty purposes and the defenders as 0.5 divisions. This is taking place on the defender's homewaorld (the defending army is Home Guard#1) so I would expect that the defenders will take fewer casualties than the attackers due to environmental factors. That being said, this means that the defender took 2.8 times the losses the attacker did which is more in line with the odds shown. Also the various facilities that can be built may have changed the casualty rate. We don't know if there was an effect since they are not listed. As to your points, I agree. It is very unclear on what basis the unmodified odds are set so we have no way to gauge how to impact the battle. On the other hand I appreciate Pete and WKE posting this information as it has clarified to some extent how the TAC bonus points are calculated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magus666 Posted July 6, 2006 Report Share Posted July 6, 2006 I agree with you, ali-t-akua. It would make more sense (maybe) if the defender had an advantage because of environmental factors. I was just reading it directly from what WKE posted: Attacking divisions counted as if they were 1 4 divisions each for casualty purposes Defending divisions counted as if they were 0 5 divisions each for casualty purposes According to what Pete wrote, this would mean that for each division that the attacker was "scheduled" to lose because of combat damage, they would actually lose 1/1.4 = .714 Units The defender on the other hand would lose 2 units ( 1/.5) for every unit they were scheduled to lose. However, this number, I believe, is based mostly on lifeform mods. If enviromental factors are incorporated, I dont think they are shown in this number. So in a straight up fight with no TAC, environmental, or other modifiers, the defender should be losing 2.8 units to each unit the attacker loses. Of course, you are correct about the rest of it. We have no idea what installations (Army bases, Fortifications, etc) were present, and what impact they may have had. We also dont know what effect terrain, gravity, atmosphere, etc. may have had (IE, I would assume that if you are native to a High-G, Frozen Rockball world covered in glaciers, that you would have a significant penalty fighting on a Low-G, Temperate Jungle planet). Still, it just seemed a little odd that the attacker with a 6.828571:1 unmodified odds in his favor, and a 1:2.8 casualty ratio, should lose the same number of divisions as the defender. If those numbers even vaguely "stack", then you would think that the defender should be losing about 20 divisions for every one the attacker loses. ( 6.828571 * 2.8 = 19.12 ). The effects of installations, environment, etc., would have to be severe in order to bring this back to a 1:1 loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WKE235 Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 I think the overall displayed combat is not listing a few things. Items such as lifeform bonuses / impacts on the fighting, the presence of leaders, etcetera... are not shown. Here's what I suspect impacted the numbers the most. 1) I attacked a Homeworld .. so I am willing to bet there were quite a few leaders sitting about with nothing better to do than direct fire down upon my forces. This alone might explain the high division loses on my side. This assumes they were assigned to the defensive forces of course, to aid in the battle. 2) My HW has an Ammonia atmosphere, at 110 K, 12 tilt, 4.6 G's (yep, 4.6), and Liquid Nitrogen oceans. The NSI had a Carbon Dioxide atmosphere, 245 K, 9 tilt, 1.8 G's, and Liquid Ammonia ocens. What impact this had on the combat is not displayed (though a CSV shows my race, even with small colonization bonuses, is at Very High attrition). 3) Racial bonuses are not displayed as well. Things like Ground and Close combat bonuses, Defensive Bonuses, Special Bonuses 4) Combat options. My forces had an Offensive Order of Artillery Bombardment, and Defensive Order of Nuclear Release. I have no idea how this impacted the odds or battle, or what options the enemy forces used. Heck, I could have been losing and been forced from Offensive to Defensive and unleased my Nuclear and Special Weapons might. We have no idea how battles play out and how these options are used. 5) Installations. NSI did have 1 constructed Field Fortification. Along with every other Imperial Installation of course. For my force, there were NO (zip, zero, nada) leaders with them as the odds were high they would expire. I sent enough that if there had been no building of troops I could win, but kept leaders back in fear there would be a lot of enemy troops, saving them for the follow up attack (like orbital bombarment fun, then the main landing). Lucky for me my troops all overachieved and earned their pay for the week. SO .. I had no leader bonuses, NSI may have had many. I attacked a world hostile to my race, making it more difficult to survive. And racial bonuses are a big unknown. Overall, we have lots more to learn about ground combat. Sounds like fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magus666 Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 Sounds like we could use alot more information on ground combat results. Not numbers (since we dont want to just reduce everything to number crunching), but more general information on how environment, leaders, installations, tactics, and all the other factors may impact things. After all (assuming you have any surviving troops at the end) you certainly would know how many died in combat, how many died from adverse environment (or how it affected them), how the enemy fought (racial modifiers),whether or not your army released nuclear/chemical/biological weapons, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobknob Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 All you need to know about ground combat is to diversify your troops and build more divisions. In the end you will be successful. It also won't hurt to research some ground tech once in a while. One last thing... if you are a brain blob you should give up on ground combat and hire a merc to do it for you. At least until you have completed 4th Gen Species Engineering and have spent the points to give your blobs a bit of a back bone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TErnest Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 All you need to know about ground combat is to diversify your troops and build more divisions. In the end you will be successful. It also won't hurt to research some ground tech once in a while. One last thing... if you are a brain blob you should give up on ground combat and hire a merc to do it for you. At least until you have completed 4th Gen Species Engineering and have spent the points to give your blobs a bit of a back bone. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <Ahem!> Speaking for invertibrates everywere... I take exception to that! TErnest (for Arcane Services, Inc... rumored to be a race of reasonably ground capable cephalopods) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali-t-akua Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 All you need to know about ground combat is to diversify your troops and build more divisions. In the end you will be successful. It also won't hurt to research some ground tech once in a while. One last thing... if you are a brain blob you should give up on ground combat and hire a merc to do it for you. At least until you have completed 4th Gen Species Engineering and have spent the points to give your blobs a bit of a back bone. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <Ahem!> Speaking for invertibrates everywere... I take exception to that! TErnest (for Arcane Services, Inc... rumored to be a race of reasonably ground capable cephalopods) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But TErnest, that is why you need 4th Gen Species Engineering, so you can become a vertebrate!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TErnest Posted July 7, 2006 Report Share Posted July 7, 2006 All you need to know about ground combat is to diversify your troops and build more divisions. In the end you will be successful. It also won't hurt to research some ground tech once in a while. One last thing... if you are a brain blob you should give up on ground combat and hire a merc to do it for you. At least until you have completed 4th Gen Species Engineering and have spent the points to give your blobs a bit of a back bone. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <Ahem!> Speaking for invertibrates everywere... I take exception to that! TErnest (for Arcane Services, Inc... rumored to be a race of reasonably ground capable cephalopods) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But TErnest, that is why you need 4th Gen Species Engineering, so you can become a vertebrate!!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bah! Why would we want to develope ANY rigid bones that would only serve to limit our shape shifting abilities? Would predators want to evolve away from sharp teeth? Would humans want to give up their opposable thumbs? (Personally, I think that their opposable thumbs only make them weak!) Would gremlinoids want to go give up their...err... high pitched cackle? I think not! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.