Gene Warriors should not be the top tier

[Secret Master]

While there are many major issues with ground combat, I think one major issue is the fact that Gene Warriors are the be-all and end-all.

But are they really?

Let's consider this logically.

Gene Warriors are obviously the best for defense when you can put 12 armies on a planet. In terms of concentration of force, they beat everything except titanic life (which is limited to smaller numbers anyway).

But I can send more than 12 armies on an attack. I can create armies of 100 or more troops for invasion purposes. In terms of economies of scale, are Gene Warriors actually better?

For comparison purposes, let's leave aside species and building considerations. Let's just compare basic unit stats and costs of some units. Let's assume we have used the technology cheat that gives you every non-repeatable tech. (This means we have some techs in place that reduce maintenance costs.)

Gene Warriors cost 350 minerals and 50 energy credits. They take 360 days to build. They cost 0.8 energy credit a month to support.

Slave armies cost 20 minerals and no energy credits. They take 60 days to build. They cost 0.20 a month to support.

Clones cost 60 minerals a month and no energy credits. They take 30 days to build. They cost 0.26 a month to support.

Robot Armies cost 15 energy credits and 100 minerals. They take 90 days to build. They cost 0.40 a month to support.

These stats mean a few things:

1) For the mineral cost of a single Gene Warrior army unit, I could build 17.5 slave armies. Note that the slaves cost no energy up front.

2) For the mineral cost of a single Gene Warrior army unit, I could build 5.83333 clone armies.

3) For the mineral cost of a single Gene Warrior army unit, I could build 3.5 robot armies. For the energy credit cost, it's 3.333333. (Close, but not quite the same.)

4) In the time it takes to train a single Gene Warrior army unit, I could train 6 slave armies.

5) In the time it takes to train a single Gene Warrior army unit, I could train 12 clone armies.

6) In the time it takes to train a single Gene Warrior army unit, I could train 4 robot armies.

7) One Gene Warrior army costs as much as 4 slave armies, 3.07 clone armies, and 2 robot armies in terms of maintenance costs per month.

Alright, so if Gene Warriors are going to be worth building for offensive purposes, they need to beat out these other unit types.

With all non-repeatable techs, researched, here's the damage break down:

Clone armies: Average damage: 2.94
Slave armies: Average damage: 2.71
Robot armies: Average damage: 2.59
Gene Warriors: Average damage: 7.085

Health:
Clones: 250
Slaves: 230
Robots: 400
Gene Warriors: 600

So, in terms of DPS, Gene Warriors are worth 2.4 Clone armies, 2.6 Slave armies, and 2.73 Robot armies.

In terms of health, Gene Warriors are worth 2.4 Clone armies, 2.6 Slave armies, and 1.5 Robot armies.

So, without factoring in morale, Gene Warriors are not that great of a buy. They take too long to build, cost too much, and cost too much to support.

What about morale and morale damage?

Gene Warriors have 400 morale and have an average morale damage of 14.175.
Clones have 250 morale and have an average morale damage of 3.6.
Slave armies have a morale of 200 and have an average morale damage of 2.715.
Robots have a morale of 200 and have an average morale damage of 2.595.

So, if we care about morale, Gene Warriors have the morale pool of 2 slave armies, 1.6 Clone armies, and 1.6 Robot armies. In terms of damaging morale, Gene Warriors perform as well as 3.9375 Clone armies, 5.22 Slave armies, and 5.46 robot armies.

What does this mean?

In terms of mineral cost upfront, slaves are a much better buy than Gene Warriors. Sure, you need 6:1 odds to make winning almost a certainty, but so what? I can build 17.5 slave armies for the cost of a single Gene Warrior.

Clones are also a better buy in terms of minerals. You need 4:1 odds to ensure a win (beating both morale damage and regular damage), but so what? I can build 5.8 Clones for every Gene Warrior.

Robots are a loser in terms of mineral costs compared to Gene Warriors in terms of damage (their low morale and morale damage stats really hurt them). But they have better health pools than Clones and Slaves. In terms of unit health, however, they are still a pretty good buy compared to Gene Warriors. They will certainly last longer in combat per point of minerals than Gene Warriors.

What about maintenance costs?

In terms of energy credit costs per month, Gene Warriors seem to beat Clones and slaves. Since one Gene Warrior army costs as much as 4 slave armies, 3.07 clone armies, and 2 robot armies in terms of maintenance costs per month. But Gene Warriors also cost 50 energy credits to build, so that translates into 192 months of maintenance for a single Clone army or a whopping 250 months of maintenance for a slave army. If you build 6 slave armies (to be able to beat one gene warrior per our earlier analysis), it would take 41 months before the maintenance cost of Gen Warriors starts letting them come out on top thanks to the initial 50 credit cost. For clones, it would take 40 months before the energy credit savings of Gene Warriors kicks in.

Then there's the time factor. I could just not bother building troops until I actually need them (to save on maintenance costs). In the time it takes to train a single Gene Warrior army unit, I could train 6 slave armies. In the time it takes to train a single Gene Warrior army unit, I could train 12 clone armies. In the time it takes to train a single Gene Warrior army unit, I could train 4 robot armies.

In short, if time is a factor, I can put more DPS and health and morale and morale damage into the field to fight if I build something other than Gene Warriors. Even better, clones train so damn quickly that I could literally start with zero army, and within a year, I could have 48 clone armies ready to go if I just put four clone facilities on four planets and then didn't bother to build armies until a war broke out. The credit savings for "on demand" clone armies would be substantial for empires that spend a lot of time at peace.

What about revolts?

If you are a slaving and conquering empire that does not suppress factions, you need garrisons on basically all worlds. Here the Gene Warrior might earn its pay. You only need a few to defeat slave revolts, and since those garrisons will be there for decades, the maintenance costs really make a difference.

So, I think the answer to this thread is "Gene Warriors are not top tier." I'll stick to clones and slaves except for defending the absolutely most critical worlds. Or for repressing my slave populations.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I don't have the energy to read the whole thread, but here's my two cents: given the simplicity of ground combat, it's almost impossible to have armies with different "roles". As such, they're predisposed to a linear scale where more advanced armies have flatly better stats, and that means that whichever type has the best stats will be the top-tier choice.

It's not really avoidable as I see it given the current design (which is partly why I've been solidly against suggestions that we need more types of armies like "armoured divisions" or "aircraft" or whatever, because they'd just be clutter with no real distinguishing features).

 

[A Cat]

Secret Master said what I wanted to say. Except with actual analysis instead of a wild ass guess. Slave armies or clone armies are the way to go on attack.

Although, seriously what the hell is up with only allowing 12 defensive armies? You can fit infinite armies of the attack somehow, build spaceships that can support them indefinitely, but you only got room for 12 when you're defending?

Honestly, though I think the invasion system is screwed up on multiple levels.

 

[Secret Master]

Secret Master said what I wanted to say. Except with actual analysis instead of a wild ass guess.

I forgot one small part of my analysis:

If troop transports come under attack for some reason, resulting in lost troops, the pain is far greater the more expensive the troops are.

Given the cost of Gene Warriors, if I used them on the offensive, I'd babysit them far more than other troop types.

 

[Haresus]

I forgot one small part of my analysis:

If troop transports come under attack for some reason, resulting in lost troops, the pain is far greater the more expensive the troops are.

Given the cost of Gene Warriors, if I used them on the offensive, I'd babysit them far more than other troop types.

But what about unit upgrades/add-ons? Upgrading 12 clone armies is going to be 12 times more expensive than upgrading a single gene warrior. Or are the add-ons useless? I remember reading something about them being terrible for their cost somewhere, but not sure if that is true.

 

[Chaos_TLW]

But what about unit upgrades/add-ons? Upgrading 12 clone armies is going to be 12 times more expensive than upgrading a single gene warrior. Or are the add-ons useless? I remember reading something about them being terrible for their cost somewhere, but not sure if that is true.

If you are going on a full-clone or full-slave ground "strat" (lol) those minerals are better used making more armies, not upgrading existing ones.

 

[Haresus]

If you are going on a full-clone or full-slave ground "strat" (lol) those minerals are better used making more armies, not upgrading existing ones.

This is perhaps true, but you would still have to compare a fully upgraded Gene Warrior to the 12 or so non-upgraded clone armies and see if that makes a difference. It won't add to the build time, at the very least.

 

[Chaos_TLW]

This is perhaps true, but you would still have to compare a fully upgraded Gene Warrior to the 12 or so non-upgraded clone armies and see if that makes a difference. It won't add to the build time, at the very least.

All of them seem to cost 50 minerals plus a few cost 25 EC. Those minerals can nearly double the damage output of a full-clone army (5 additional armies for every 6 attachments) and allow you to build a full 2.5 as many slave armies. Besides, the more worlds you dedicate to parallel recruitment of armies, the less build time becomes a concern.

Upgrading cheap mass assault armies are just not worth it. Build more and swarm the enemy. Defensive Gene Warrior armies, on the other hand, can probably benefit from it a lot more. It is a bit of extra buff at no additional wait time, as you mentioned, which is great taking into account the awful build time they do have. On the other hand, there's that awful attachment UI to conted with.

 

[Lukepop]

One thing about Genes. They don't require you to build clone bays and they don't require you to be a slaver. Now they may definitely be worse than robots though it is interesting how high their morale damage is. Finally, in comparison to robots Gene warriors benefit from racial traits such as strong and very strong, which, correct me if I'm wrong, make their average damage into 9.919(using pre-existing stats) so for an empire without slaves or clone buildings they're almost 4 times as damaging as robots. Granted, Clone and slave armies also benefit from this boost but, as I said earlier, in an empire without slavery and if you wish to avoid cloning bays in favour of pure labs then Gene Warriors, with some gene manipulation, are the way to go for your military.

 

[Kapitalisti]

Funny, in my current game I have PSI warriors and then I cheated to get gene warriors (for research purposes only of course) and thought they're actually pretty evenly matched. Either one will totally slaughter any mortals they're up against anyway.

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

What about revolts?

If you are a slaving and conquering empire that does not suppress factions, you need garrisons on basically all worlds. Here the Gene Warrior might earn its pay. You only need a few to defeat slave revolts, and since those garrisons will be there for decades, the maintenance costs really make a difference.

So, I think the answer to this thread is "Gene Warriors are not top tier." I'll stick to clones and slaves except for defending the absolutely most critical worlds. Or for repressing my slave populations.

For the cost of those gene warriors, couldn't you just drop 4 slave armies on the world per gene warrior and suppress enough unrest to stop rebellions all together?

 

[tinculin]

Disagree because space marines are the best armies.

 

[Promethian]

In terms of 1v1 fights. Gene and Psi are pretty evenly matched. Both will completely dumpster Xenomorphs because of the low moral. Android armies, assuming morale break immunity, will defeat both.

Cost analysis wise. Slaves are the best strength per mineral of any army. Clones are the best strength per recuitment time and are above the curve in mineral efficiency. Of the big dogs Androids are cheapest and fastest but the Gene and Psi will perform better against non-Android armies.

If I had to choose just one army type beyond the base 2. I'd go with Clones. Fast recruit and stronger than assault armies they will do the job as close to on demand as possible.

The big dogs have their use if you do long term prep.

 

[Jorrhast]

But are they really?

Let's consider this logically.
<...>

Don't you use your fancy mathematics to muddle the issue!(c)
I build them `cause they're coolfor RP reasons. Could go with robots but they aren't as cool as GWsall PCs already use them so meh, screw robots.

 

[Secret Master]

For the cost of those gene warriors, couldn't you just drop 4 slave armies on the world per gene warrior and suppress enough unrest to stop rebellions all together?

Well, yes.

But if you look at the dates of these posts, you will notice I did this analysis months before Banks came out. Unrest wasn't an issue (but killing POPs in revolt was). Back then, I'd just let slaves revolt and shoot them. In the current version of the game, if I have enough armies on the planet to shoot them, I probably have unrest minimized to within acceptable levels.

Now you can use slave armies as a very cheap and efficient way of dealing with unrest provided you are not sitting at the offensive army cap for your POPs. Small empires with few POPs might need every single army on the offensive, so you would put defensive armies in place of the slaves. Also, you may just not want to bother micromanaging slave armies on worlds that need pacification, so you just build defense armies on those worlds while gathering your slave armies for further conquest. Folks with wormholes might not want to tie up wormhole stations for months on end moving armies around the empire.

One thing about Genes. They don't require you to build clone bays and they don't require you to be a slaver.

This is true.

But I consider the opportunity cost of a clone bay versus a normal lab to be minuscule. And clone bays benefit from tiles with society research on them, so you put the clone bay on a, say, an alien pet tile that comes with +3 society, and you aren't really hurting your research that much (because cloning the alien pets to fight in your wars is a far better use of that tile than the xeno zoo).

You also don't need cloning bays on many planets. Four will give you 48 clone armies per year. (More if you put military academies there, although I rarely do this). If you need more than 48 clone armies a year, then either something has gone horribly wrong, or you might need to reevaluate your strategy.

EDIT: If we could build xenomorphs from clone bays, putting the clone bay on the alien pet tile would be an obvious candidate for a bonus.

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

Well, yes.

But if you look at the dates of these posts, you will notice I did this analysis months before Banks came out. Unrest wasn't an issue (but killing POPs in revolt was). Back then, I'd just let slaves revolt and shoot them. In the current version of the game, if I have enough armies on the planet to shoot them, I probably have unrest minimized to within acceptable levels.

Ah, that explains alot. Thank you.

 

[Lukepop]

Well in the case of an alien pet tile you could also put down a zoo, giving happiness, 1 unity and extra migration. It does have less society output, true, but the unity is good and the happiness is a nice buff to everything on the planet. Also, yes, you lose one physics and one engineering from a biolab 3 compared to a clone bay.

On a sidenote you'd lose two society research by building clone bays on your cap from the biolabs 4 and 5 so please don't do that. It does seem then clone armies are more efficient but, perhaps for a player trying to maximise research, labs are more efficient. Is the difference between clones and genes large enough to make 4 physics and 4 engineering worth it? Early to mid-game at least?

On an unrelated note It is important to remember when comparing them to robots and xenomorphs that "species" armies can be made vastly more damaging in comparison. A player that gives his "army" species the strong traits will do a significant amount of damage.

 

[unfortunatecrow]

Maybe not necessarily "beat"; but "have a bonus against".

 

[TempusxX]

no thank you I do not want a rock paper scissor approach and if I wanted that then I wouldn't even be playing this game at all

 

[Baron Jukaga]

One thing that will improve ground combat are PDC units. They would take a shot (or two) at the descending transports with a lethal hit. Once on the invaders have landed they would be of no more use but could thin out the herd enough for the defenders to hold. It worked well in Distant Worlds.