Some clarifications needed on the 1.03 combat system - defense, and terrain/weather modifiers

[Slaughter]

Hello there! I am currently doing some combat-related modding, and I am in doubt about how Defensive and Offensive Vulnerability work, how the devs thought up the defensive stats of mobile units and how they work alongside modifiers.


1. When it comes to the defensive/offensive vulnerability calculation, is the attack x3,5 meant to be the sum of all three types of land unit attack (softattack, hardattack and airattack) or not? From the calculations I did, it being a sum of all three seems to be case.

2. One thing I noticed is that mobile units such as tanks, mechanized, etc, have lower Defensive and Offensive Vulnerability compared to groundpounders like Infantry, Marines, etc. At first, it seemed puzzling to me, because mobile units clearly do not follow the ~3.5x attack rule. But then I think I understood it was done that way because mobile vehicle units have more penalties in adverse terrain such as jungle, so while the number is theorically lower, in adverse weather and terrain, a tank is meant to have bigger vulnerabilities compared to infantry, similar to how speeds equalize in adverse terrain. Or is it?

3. How does Defensive/Offensive Vulnerability tie to the modifiers? For example:

Infantry 1936
Defensive Vulnerability = 35
Offensive Vulnerability = 40
DEF_JUNGLE = -58

Improved Light Tank:
Defensive Vulnerability = 20
Offensive Vulnerability = 26
DEF_JUNGLE = -65

In this case, both units are defending in a jungle. How is this modifier applied? Is it applied to their defensive stats (as in, are they gaining vulnerability?) or just to their general attack/defense % in the battle?

4. Aren't mobile units supposed to have about the same speed as infantry in bad terrain? I did some calculation comparison on infantry vs Mot, and the results were 3,9 vs 8,1 speed. Mot is still 2x as fast as infantry in a jungle, rather than the x4,5 difference (6 vs 27 maxspeed).

 

[qer]

Hello there! I am currently doing some combat-related modding, and I am in doubt about how Defensive and Offensive Vulnerability work, how the devs thought up the defensive stats of mobile units and how they work alongside modifiers.


1. When it comes to the defensive/offensive vulnerability calculation, is the attack x3,5 meant to be the sum of all three types of land unit attack (softattack, hardattack and airattack) or not? From the calculations I did, it being a sum of all three seems to be case.

2. One thing I noticed is that mobile units such as tanks, mechanized, etc, have lower Defensive and Offensive Vulnerability compared to groundpounders like Infantry, Marines, etc. At first, it seemed puzzling to me, because mobile units clearly do not follow the ~3.5x attack rule. But then I think I understood it was done that way because mobile vehicle units have more penalties in adverse terrain such as jungle, so while the number is theorically lower, in adverse weather and terrain, a tank is meant to have bigger vulnerabilities compared to infantry, similar to how speeds equalize in adverse terrain. Or is it?

3. How does Defensive/Offensive Vulnerability tie to the modifiers? For example:

Infantry 1936
Defensive Vulnerability = 35
Offensive Vulnerability = 40
DEF_JUNGLE = -58

Improved Light Tank:
Defensive Vulnerability = 20
Offensive Vulnerability = 26
DEF_JUNGLE = -65

In this case, both units are defending in a jungle. How is this modifier applied? Is it applied to their defensive stats (as in, are they gaining vulnerability?) or just to their general attack/defense % in the battle?

4. Aren't mobile units supposed to have about the same speed as infantry in bad terrain? I did some calculation comparison on infantry vs Mot, and the results were 3,9 vs 8,1 speed. Mot is still 2x as fast as infantry in a jungle, rather than the x4,5 difference (6 vs 27 maxspeed).

Offensive/Defensive vulnerability represent the possible amount of firepower that can be applied to a unit, after which point diminishing returns appear (so 0,6 chance to evade if defense remain, but only 0,9 if it is depleted). After a certain amount, increases in the amount of lead fire on their way would be less effective due to the lack of targets to engage. Simply put, 6 more artillery rounds will matter little if the shell you are firing are already hitting their targets and forcing the enemy to move. With that out of the way:
1& 2. The balance on Dh values doesn't follow the formula and I don't know where you get it from. Tanks units have lower vulnerabilities either due to then being smaller size or to represent better offensive capabilities. I think the latter make more sense when you compare for example militias having the biggest vulnerability , or attachement reducing vulnerabilities. Either way, in regards to your mod I would suggest the following: adjust the values in regards to the force size first and foremost (smaller units of elite warriors/power armor means less firepower can be applied against then), direct fire attachments should increase vulnerabilities ( if you attach a heavy weapon group, they mean more targets for the enemy) while indirect fire support units should keep it the same, don't reduce it with technology and finally modifiy on certain aspects on the basis of how capable the unit is of performing offensive operations.

3. It is reduced to represent the unit having a lower % of his force engage due to the difficult terrain. Do note that some modifiers don't make sense due tobeing carried on from 1.02, but overall if a unit have less force to engage with, it should have a lower vulnerability.

Regardless vulnerability should only come to play in situations wherre one sideis outnumber. Otherwise it should not come into play. Much more important is the GDE modifier, as that actually modified the hit chance, and I would recommend not incresing it over 100 without changing the base hit chances.

4. You also need to take in consideration things like nigth and other factors, but yes mot should be close to Inf in moving in difficult terrain.

 

[emoryjean]

Offensive/Defensive vulnerability represent the possible amount of firepower that can be applied to a unit, after which point diminishing returns appear (so 0,6 chance to evade if defense remain, but only 0,9 if it is depleted). After a certain amount, increases in the amount of lead fire on their way would be less effective due to the lack of targets to engage. Simply put, 6 more artillery rounds will matter little if the shell you are firing are already hitting their targets and forcing the enemy to move. With that out of the way:
1& 2. The balance on Dh values doesn't follow the formula and I don't know where you get it from. Tanks units have lower vulnerabilities either due to then being smaller size or to represent better offensive capabilities. I think the latter make more sense when you compare for example militias having the biggest vulnerability , or attachement reducing vulnerabilities. Either way, in regards to your mod I would suggest the following: adjust the values in regards to the force size first and foremost (smaller units of elite warriors/power armor means less firepower can be applied against then), direct fire attachments should increase vulnerabilities ( if you attach a heavy weapon group, they mean more targets for the enemy) while indirect fire support units should keep it the same, don't reduce it with technology and finally modifiy on certain aspects on the basis of how capable the unit is of performing offensive operations.

3. It is reduced to represent the unit having a lower % of his force engage due to the difficult terrain. Do note that some modifiers don't make sense due tobeing carried on from 1.02, but overall if a unit have less force to engage with, it should have a lower vulnerability.

Regardless vulnerability should only come to play in situations wherre one sideis outnumber. Otherwise it should not come into play. Much more important is the GDE modifier, as that actually modified the hit chance, and I would recommend not incresing it over 100 without changing the base hit chances.

4. You also need to take in consideration things like nigth and other factors, but yes mot should be close to Inf in moving in difficult terrain.

Thanks.

 

[Slaughter]

Offensive/Defensive vulnerability represent the possible amount of firepower that can be applied to a unit, after which point diminishing returns appear (so 0,6 chance to evade if defense remain, but only 0,9 if it is depleted). After a certain amount, increases in the amount of lead fire on their way would be less effective due to the lack of targets to engage. Simply put, 6 more artillery rounds will matter little if the shell you are firing are already hitting their targets and forcing the enemy to move.

Greetings, qer. Thank you for answering me.

That makes sense.

1& 2. The balance on Dh values doesn't follow the formula and I don't know where you get it from.

From this dev diary:

Diminishing returns

The first two actually belong together, and my theory atm is that it is not a design flaw in the engine but some mixup when the final hardcoded values were put into the engine.
The defense values Defensiveness-Toughness are used to determine the chance a hit has to occur.
Currently there is a 20% chance of a hit, as long as a units “defense” is not overwhelmed, when no defense is left, the chance of a hit increases by 20%. -> the damage doubles.
Which means in game that a unit suddenly takes more damage when it is fighting more enemy units, much more then the increase in hostile firepower justifies.

In reality the effect is for the most part opposite. There are enough discussions about diminishing returns in the forums, so I'll just skip going into detail here.

The point is that it can be emulated, with the existing mechanic of Hit chances and defense values.
We set the defense value of a unit to be ~3.5x of a units attackvalue.
And now comes the interesting part, we switch the the chance a hit has to occur.
And suddenly we achieve results in gamepraxis that are close to the diminishing return formulas.

Right now I'm using the attackvalues of the first model in my units.

Tanks units have lower vulnerabilities either due to then being smaller size or to represent better offensive capabilities. I think the latter make more sense when you compare for example militias having the biggest vulnerability , or attachement reducing vulnerabilities.

Hmmm... perhaps. That said, something like an infantry division is average 100 men in my mod, while a tank division is 50 men and 10 tanks. It is true that there are half the men, but tanks are bigger targets than men.

Either way, in regards to your mod I would suggest the following: adjust the values in regards to the force size first and foremost (smaller units of elite warriors/power armor means less firepower can be applied against then), direct fire attachments should increase vulnerabilities ( if you attach a heavy weapon group, they mean more targets for the enemy)

Force size, huh?
Wait, why should direct fire attachment increase vulnerability, even if the unit has the same number of men? If, say, I load my men up with machineguns, shouldn't their vulnerabilities go down because of suppressive fire providing cover for advances and such, or does it not work within the logic?

I was thinking about target size myself as well - Super Mutants and Powered Armor would be easier targets than humans as they are larger in the battlefield, even if they are in the same number. That was my logic regarding vehicles and such as well. But perhaps my logic might be wrong.

Also, I was thinking on balance, especially vehicle related - how to make vehicles and Powered Armor not be the be-all-end-all? This is especially important because I plan to make softness and hard attack a lot more important in the future.

while indirect fire support units should keep it the same, don't reduce it with technology and finally modifiy on certain aspects on the basis of how capable the unit is of performing offensive operations.

I never liked to mess with stats using tech, myself.

Modify on certain aspects? How so? Is this about the tech or the indirect fire units?

3. It is reduced to represent the unit having a lower % of his force engage due to the difficult terrain. Do note that some modifiers don't make sense due tobeing carried on from 1.02, but overall if a unit have less force to engage with, it should have a lower vulnerability.

I understand. But you did not answer me how the DEF modifier is applied - is it applied purely to the Defense-Attack in combat, or does it modify the Offensive/Defensive Vulnerabilities of involved units?

Regardless vulnerability should only come to play in situations wherre one sideis outnumber. Otherwise it should not come into play. Much more important is the GDE modifier, as that actually modified the hit chance, and I would recommend not incresing it over 100 without changing the base hit chances.

Alright!
I'm going with symmetrical GDE across doctrines for now, change it in the future when I revamp my tech tree.

4. You also need to take in consideration things like nigth and other factors, but yes mot should be close to Inf in moving in difficult terrain.

Good point about night, I must not forget about the modifiers.
How close? Should mot still be faster (but less, like my calculations), same speed or should inf be faster?

 

[qer]

Hmmm... perhaps. That said, something like an infantry division is average 100 men in my mod, while a tank division is 50 men and 10 tanks. It is true that there are half the men, but tanks are bigger targets than men.



Force size, huh?
Wait, why should direct fire attachment increase vulnerability, even if the unit has the same number of men? If, say, I load my men up with machineguns, shouldn't their vulnerabilities go down because of suppressive fire providing cover for advances and such, or does it not work within the logic?

I was thinking about target size myself as well - Super Mutants and Powered Armor would be easier targets than humans as they are larger in the battlefield, even if they are in the same number. That was my logic regarding vehicles and such as well. But perhaps my logic might be wrong.

Also, I was thinking on balance, especially vehicle related - how to make vehicles and Powered Armor not be the be-all-end-all? This is especially important because I plan to make softness and hard attack a lot more important in the future.


I never liked to mess with stats using tech, myself.

Modify on certain aspects? How so? Is this about the tech or the indirect fire units?

I understand. But you did not answer me how the DEF modifier is applied - is it applied purely to the Defense-Attack in combat, or does it modify the Offensive/Defensive Vulnerabilities of involved units?


Alright!
I'm going with symmetrical GDE across doctrines for now, change it in the future when I revamp my tech tree.


Good point about night, I must not forget about the modifiers.
How close? Should mot still be faster (but less, like my calculations), same speed or should inf be faster?

i can't multi quote from my mobile, so paragraph by paragraph

Regarding unit size, if you consider most unit sizes to be similar, I would recommend the folowing: Set an arbitrary offensive and defensive values that you are comfortable with (going with the previous post , 3 times the offensive firepower of an average unit) and then modified the values depending on special quirks of units. Still defense values should not be depleted unless the unit is outnumber, so even going with a fixed number for all units could make sense. Still some variety is nice, even if in gameplay terms they aren't that significant.

Regarding attachments, the question is if they are replacing the units weapons or you are actually increasing the number of combatants. If it is the former then vulnerability would be the same, if it is the latter it should increase as more elements would be engaged in combat at any point. A counter argument can be made regarding suppression capabilities Ie: the ability of the unit to disrupt enemy firepower but I think for DH that effect should be ignore.

Mutants and power armor would probably not make much difference in how many bullets you an shoot to then. I would imagine that the amount of firepower you can effectively apply to a power armor squad would be similar to a non armored squad. A completely different question is regarding monstrous creatures. Here I think modified GDE values would make more sense as it represent unit dispersion and I don't think critters or robots would employ very efficient tactics in this regard.

Vehicles and Power armour need to be the end of all to justify their cost. Still, power armor main drawback would be speed- they can win combats but mainly thought attrition. Vehicles on the other hands are Op (just like real life) due to being THE force multiplier, allowing to out maneuver foot infantry. For balance I think the best approach is cost, regarding production but supplies as well. Vehicles could be slower as well, but at the end of the day they need to be worth their cost. Also as a suggestion, make power infantry a separate unit to not powered infantry. Firepower wise they would be similar, but the former having much higher hardness than the latter.

I commented on the first paragraph but to make it more clear: Values you consider important for attack or defense.

It affects both attack and vulnerabilities AFAIK. In some cases like entrechment it doesn't make sense ( a entrenched unit should be less vulnerable than a non entrenched unit, but the opposite is in game) but in general if you can use less firepower, the enemy would be able to fire less in return. In some cases like ESE I think vulnerabilities isn't affected, but don't quote me on that.

Regarding mobile units, the values you feel more comfortable with. Regarding Vanilla it makes sense that motorized units are faster than infantry in jungles because there are roads and such that vehicles can employ. In a post apoc world, infrastructure may be so bad that motorized vehicles could be slower in certain terrains. Still, I think gameplay balance should be your main indicator, and I would say in that case similar to infantry only in the roughest terrain.

 

[Slaughter]

Regarding unit size, if you consider most unit sizes to be similar, I would recommend the folowing: Set an arbitrary offensive and defensive values that you are comfortable with (going with the previous post , 3 times the offensive firepower of an average unit) and then modified the values depending on special quirks of units. Still defense values should not be depleted unless the unit is outnumber, so even going with a fixed number for all units could make sense. Still some variety is nice, even if in gameplay terms they aren't that significant.

I see... I might just get the average attack numbers for average 100-unit infantry units and calculate from there.
Some of my units do have different values, so currently I am trying to stay "in spirit" of the original values by using % or staying within simple point differences. An example:

Regulars:

Equal defensiness and toughness.
Wasteland Regulars:
softattack: 8
8 x 3.5 = 28
30 defensiveness
30 toughness


Irregulars:

+5 difference from defensiveness to toughness. Remember, more was good and now is bad.
Wasteland Warriors:
softattack: 5
5 x 3.5 = 17.5
defensiveness = 20
toughness = 25

Note: Seriously thinking about using the second model in this case. But irregulars might indeed have more space for themselves compared to Regulars.

I'm not sure if Irregulars should have lower defensive vul. than Regulars, because Irregulars get super-neat bonuses in adverse weather, unlike Regulars.

Still, I'm still thinking it. I'm thinking of just following your idea literally and try to find an average, then use it as a base of calculation.

Regarding attachments, the question is if they are replacing the units weapons or you are actually increasing the number of combatants. If it is the former then vulnerability would be the same, if it is the latter it should increase as more elements would be engaged in combat at any point. A counter argument can be made regarding suppression capabilities Ie: the ability of the unit to disrupt enemy firepower but I think for DH that effect should be ignore.

That makes sense.
More men = More Vulnerability is also interesting, because it means a disadvantage (which I'm all for because I'm bored by things being all bonuses).
By the way, DH Full artillery brigades give -Vulnerabilities, any idea why is that? Did they just invert the vanilla values with a minus sign and call it a day, or is there something else there?

Mutants and power armor would probably not make much difference in how many bullets you an shoot to then. I would imagine that the amount of firepower you can effectively apply to a power armor squad would be similar to a non armored squad. A completely different question is regarding monstrous creatures. Here I think modified GDE values would make more sense as it represent unit dispersion and I don't think critters or robots would employ very efficient tactics in this regard.

Well, I do have to account for the fact a hulking three-meter tall Super Mutant and a man in a suit of Powered Armor have larger profiles and sizes than the average human. I've thinking if Vulnerabilities or Terrain Modifiers are the way to go here.

Robots and Monsters having different GDE is an intriguing idea. Makes sense, something like a zombie army would be really lousy at dispersing, for obvious reasons - so a horde of them would be dangerous because zombies would have pretty much infinite org (they can't have their morale broken or anything like that) and therefore dangerous early on with low firepower because the only way to defeat them is to bleed their strength, but later on they would be destroyed by massed firepower from things like machineguns and artillery behind dug-in positions.

Vehicles and Power armour need to be the end of all to justify their cost. Still, power armor main drawback would be speed- they can win combats but mainly thought attrition. Vehicles on the other hands are Op (just like real life) due to being THE force multiplier, allowing to out maneuver foot infantry. For balance I think the best approach is cost, regarding production but supplies as well. Vehicles could be slower as well, but at the end of the day they need to be worth their cost. Also as a suggestion, make power infantry a separate unit to not powered infantry. Firepower wise they would be similar, but the former having much higher hardness than the latter.

So the main drawnback of Power Armor is that it's like tanks but slow? So rather than blitzkrieg, Power Armor combined arms would be about grinding the opposition with superior resistance and firepower?
I currently give Power Armor an extra brigade compared to infantry (2 > 1, I'm likely going to 3 > 2 in the next patch) to despict the fact Powered Infantry would be able to carry more firepower, so that might work...

Yeah, costs might be it - I compared supply costs of vehicles in vanilla DH and FODD, and vanilla DH's costs are like 4x times the ones we do. Which is also about their difference in speed, so increasing both seems to be the way.

Power Infantry has been made separate from normal infantry for a while now. I have been thinking about making them able to do paradrops as well. Would the game give them the Combined Arms bonus if their hardness is 50<?

I commented on the first paragraph but to make it more clear: Values you consider important for attack or defense.

Oh, right!
Yeah, you're right, gotta curb on that. Tech modifying direct unit stats in bad. Think I will make those affect modifiers instead.

It affects both attack and vulnerabilities AFAIK. In some cases like entrechment it doesn't make sense ( a entrenched unit should be less vulnerable than a non entrenched unit, but the opposite is in game) but in general if you can use less firepower, the enemy would be able to fire less in return. In some cases like ESE I think vulnerabilities isn't affected, but don't quote me on that.

Wait, what? I'm not sure that is true at all, if I remember right dug-in units get defensive bonuses. Worth getting more opinions here.

Regarding mobile units, the values you feel more comfortable with. Regarding Vanilla it makes sense that motorized units are faster than infantry in jungles because there are roads and such that vehicles can employ. In a post apoc world, infrastructure may be so bad that motorized vehicles could be slower in certain terrains. Still, I think gameplay balance should be your main indicator, and I would say in that case similar to infantry only in the roughest terrain.

Hmmm... that is reasonable. Well, infra is already worse than in vanilla across the board since I did a massive revision of infra (mostly down), so that might not need to be accounted for, but gameplay balance wise your idea is good.

 

[qer]

I see... I might just get the average attack numbers for average 100-unit infantry units and calculate from there.
Some of my units do have different values, so currently I am trying to stay "in spirit" of the original values by using % or staying within simple point differences. An example:

Regulars:

Equal defensiness and toughness.
Wasteland Regulars:
softattack: 8
8 x 3.5 = 28
30 defensiveness
30 toughness


Irregulars:

+5 difference from defensiveness to toughness. Remember, more was good and now is bad.
Wasteland Warriors:
softattack: 5
5 x 3.5 = 17.5
defensiveness = 20
toughness = 25

Note: Seriously thinking about using the second model in this case. But irregulars might indeed have more space for themselves compared to Regulars.

I'm not sure if Irregulars should have lower defensive vul. than Regulars, because Irregulars get super-neat bonuses in adverse weather, unlike Regulars.

Still, I'm still thinking it. I'm thinking of just following your idea literally and try to find an average, then use it as a base of calculation.



That makes sense.
More men = More Vulnerability is also interesting, because it means a disadvantage (which I'm all for because I'm bored by things being all bonuses).
By the way, DH Full artillery brigades give -Vulnerabilities, any idea why is that? Did they just invert the vanilla values with a minus sign and call it a day, or is there something else there?


Well, I do have to account for the fact a hulking three-meter tall Super Mutant and a man in a suit of Powered Armor have larger profiles and sizes than the average human. I've thinking if Vulnerabilities or Terrain Modifiers are the way to go here.

Robots and Monsters having different GDE is an intriguing idea. Makes sense, something like a zombie army would be really lousy at dispersing, for obvious reasons - so a horde of them would be dangerous because zombies would have pretty much infinite org (they can't have their morale broken or anything like that) and therefore dangerous early on with low firepower because the only way to defeat them is to bleed their strength, but later on they would be destroyed by massed firepower from things like machineguns and artillery behind dug-in positions.


So the main drawnback of Power Armor is that it's like tanks but slow? So rather than blitzkrieg, Power Armor combined arms would be about grinding the opposition with superior resistance and firepower?
I currently give Power Armor an extra brigade compared to infantry (2 > 1, I'm likely going to 3 > 2 in the next patch) to despict the fact Powered Infantry would be able to carry more firepower, so that might work...

Yeah, costs might be it - I compared supply costs of vehicles in vanilla DH and FODD, and vanilla DH's costs are like 4x times the ones we do. Which is also about their difference in speed, so increasing both seems to be the way.

Power Infantry has been made separate from normal infantry for a while now. I have been thinking about making them able to do paradrops as well. Would the game give them the Combined Arms bonus if their hardness is 50<?


Oh, right!
Yeah, you're right, gotta curb on that. Tech modifying direct unit stats in bad. Think I will make those affect modifiers instead.

Wait, what? I'm not sure that is true at all, if I remember right dug-in units get defensive bonuses. Worth getting more opinions here.

Hmmm... that is reasonable. Well, infra is already worse than in vanilla across the board since I did a massive revision of infra (mostly down), so that might not need to be accounted for, but gameplay balance wise your idea is good.

Actually more is worse in the new system, so having Irregulars be at a lower value would mean that they only take 20 attacks to reach the 0.9 evasion chance, while regulars would take until 30 TLDR: every attack value after 20 would mean regulars take more casualties.

Artillery gives less vulnerability bc, I imagine, to represent the 1.02 system where attachments improved defense capabilities. If you ask me, it doesn't really make sense, and attachments while improving attack and hardness should increase vulnerability as well for the reasons mentioned in the previous post.

Regarding PA and Super Mutants, Super mutants are definitely bigger than regular humans, but the difference isn't enormous while PA in the good fallout games doesn't really have a size difference that would make then unable to take cover for example. Still, regarding PA, it has been mentioned in the games, more explicitly in operation Anchorage DLC that there pre war intended usage was as mechanized infantry which makes a lot of sense. In the post-apoc world the ones which mainly use mobile infantry tactics with PA is the Enclave with air mobile infantry, so I don't think it is a bad idea to represent then as much tougher leg infantry which can paradrop. There are also other benefits for infantry like being better at urban figthing, so I do think that a "slow" but powerful unit for PA would be the option that makes more sense. No idea about combined arms bonus, although I don't know if it would be applicable to PA infantry as they are, mostly, infantry.

 

[Slaughter]

Actually more is worse in the new system, so having Irregulars be at a lower value would mean that they only take 20 attacks to reach the 0.9 evasion chance, while regulars would take until 30 TLDR: every attack value after 20 would mean regulars take more casualties.

I know, that was the way I was doing using purely attacks as base for calculation.

Btw, I ran the numbers for the average numbers of attacks for the first unit in the 100-man infantry models, here's what I came up with:

Total average numbers:
9.00
8.00
4.00
8.00
13.00
5.00
9.00
7.00
40

Average/Mean: 11.444444444444

Median: 8

Total: 103

11,44 x 3.5 = 40,04
10 x 3.5 = 35 (rounded/arrendodado)
10.3 / 3 = 34,33
103 / 3,5 = 29,42
So, 30, 35 or 40.

It seems it's going to be something between 30-40. I'm seriously thinking about just adopting the 35 because vanilla does it too, but I also don't want to adopt it because, again, vanilla does it too. Feels like I either broke the code or got outsmarted by the vanilla devs. Don't even know how to feel, lol.

Any idea how air defence/air vulnerability, surface defence/vulnerability and sea vulnerability should be done for land, air and naval units?

Tried the same thing for vehicles, didn't work lol:


14, 21, 42, 47, 56, 13

Total: 193
Mean: 32.166666666666664
Median: 31.5

Guess I'm just going with a X number fewer the standard infantry number. Like 10-15.

Artillery gives less vulnerability bc, I imagine, to represent the 1.02 system where attachments improved defense capabilities. If you ask me, it doesn't really make sense, and attachments while improving attack and hardness should increase vulnerability as well for the reasons mentioned in the previous post.

Yeah, your logic makes more logic than DH Full logic. Also yay, drawbacks (I like those because I'm weird lol).

Regarding PA and Super Mutants, Super mutants are definitely bigger than regular humans, but the difference isn't enormous while PA in the good fallout games doesn't really have a size difference that would make then unable to take cover for example.

Hmmm... makes sense. I think I will just use modifiers in cover-light terrain (like plains, frozen and deserts) to portray that.

Also, the "good Fallout games?" Based.

Still, regarding PA, it has been mentioned in the games, more explicitly in operation Anchorage DLC that there pre war intended usage was as mechanized infantry which makes a lot of sense. In the post-apoc world the ones which mainly use mobile infantry tactics with PA is the Enclave with air mobile infantry, so I don't think it is a bad idea to represent then as much tougher leg infantry which can paradrop. There are also other benefits for infantry like being better at urban figthing, so I do think that a "slow" but powerful unit for PA would be the option that makes more sense. No idea about combined arms bonus, although I don't know if it would be applicable to PA infantry as they are, mostly, infantry.

Yeah, Operation Anchorage listing PA as Mechanized Infantry is part of why I decided to split PA and normal infantry. Power Armor shouldn't be something every soldier wears - except in elite organizations.

AFAIK doesn't Combined Arms happen if a unit has softness 50<?

 

[qer]

I know, that was the way I was doing using purely attacks as base for calculation.

Btw, I ran the numbers for the average numbers of attacks for the first unit in the 100-man infantry models, here's what I came up with:

Total average numbers:
9.00
8.00
4.00
8.00
13.00
5.00
9.00
7.00
40

Average/Mean: 11.444444444444

Median: 8

Total: 103

11,44 x 3.5 = 40,04
10 x 3.5 = 35 (rounded/arrendodado)
10.3 / 3 = 34,33
103 / 3,5 = 29,42
So, 30, 35 or 40.

It seems it's going to be something between 30-40. I'm seriously thinking about just adopting the 35 because vanilla does it too, but I also don't want to adopt it because, again, vanilla does it too. Feels like I either broke the code or got outsmarted by the vanilla devs. Don't even know how to feel, lol.

Any idea how air defence/air vulnerability, surface defence/vulnerability and sea vulnerability should be done for land, air and naval units?

Tried the same thing for vehicles, didn't work lol:


14, 21, 42, 47, 56, 13

Total: 193
Mean: 32.166666666666664
Median: 31.5

Guess I'm just going with a X number fewer the standard infantry number. Like 10-15.

Very curious to get so similar values hahaha. Still, the main issue here at hand is the values that are in the mod 14 to 56 is quite literally a fourfold increase in effective firepower. Now, I would imagine that technology tier isn' the same so maybe they aren't directly comparable. Also one "quirck" of the system is that combat values are better if they don't have a big standard deviation from the average. Speacking in mod perspective, 4 times increases can make sense, as we are moving from quite literally scrap weapons to plasma based weapons. One eady solution would be for example to half the attack values but keep defensiveness at the 30 ish values (you can also keep the current values but double defensiveness, depends in what pace you want for combat). As there is tech progression in the game, I think defenssivenes values should be biased towards latter values. So if PA has 40 Sa, or 20 as I proposed, defensiveness could be in the order of 30-60 for infantry units. This have some nice implications: early on bigger unit concentrations work, but as you get higher levels of firepower you don't get the same levels of effectiveness from unit stacking. Combine with GDE increases, I think it could be a good representation of the advantages that unit dispersion gets one there are significant firepower increases.

Regarding air units, I think the model makes sense, bombers should be more vulnerable while fighters may do with just twice the value of air attack. Navies however are weird: the quantity of numbers involved and the usages of for example armor make this model make less sense, and the old model would probably work better. However there is a good solution implemented in other mods like Nick multiplayer realism mod: have different strength values for different naval units. So the main difference of naval units would be their ability to wisthand punishment, rather than taking more/less damage after a certain point.

 

[Slaughter]

Very curious to get so similar values hahaha.

Indeed it is! Especially considering this is not vanilla, lol.

Still, the main issue here at hand is the values that are in the mod 14 to 56 is quite literally a fourfold increase in effective firepower.

Yeah, its because many of these units are pretty much late-game only. Something I want to fix in future versions.

So if PA has 40 Sa, or 20 as I proposed, defensiveness could be in the order of 30-60 for infantry units. This have some nice implications: early on bigger unit concentrations work, but as you get higher levels of firepower you don't get the same levels of effectiveness from unit stacking. Combine with GDE increases, I think it could be a good representation of the advantages that unit dispersion gets one there are significant firepower increases.

That's an interesting idea for an alternate combat system. Would this manifest as a more primitive world being able to "doomstack" due to lack of explosive weapons and automatic firepower until later on?

Regarding air units, I think the model makes sense, bombers should be more vulnerable while fighters may do with just twice the value of air attack. Navies however are weird: the quantity of numbers involved and the usages of for example armor make this model make less sense, and the old model would probably work better. However there is a good solution implemented in other mods like Nick multiplayer realism mod: have different strength values for different naval units. So the main difference of naval units would be their ability to wisthand punishment, rather than taking more/less damage after a certain point.

I've looked at the DH 1.05 Full values and it doesn't seem like fighters airdefense values are twice of air attack. Seems more like they start at like 30 and end at a value like 3-1. I can't see any correlation or any logic to them, or at least I'm not aware of. Same for surfacedefense.

1.05 DH Unit and Brigade Attributes

Land Divisions Infantry,Infantry 1870,Infantry 1897,Infantry 1907,Infantry 1914,Infantry 1916,Infantry 1918,Infantry 1921,Infantry 1926,Infantry 1931,Infantry 1936,Infantry 1939,Infantry 1942,Infantry 1945,Infantry 1948,Infantry 1951,Infantry 1954,Infantry 1958,Infantry 1962 Build cost (ICdays),...

docs.google.com

I've been thinking about speed as well. Speed is a big part of how a plane defends itself. That and things like chaff and defensive guns.


What about air vulnerability of land units? I've looked at the DH Full stats, and it seems like airvulnerability is more or less 40% of the usual defensiness for that unit. 35 % 40 = 14. 22 % 40 = 8.8 (rounded down to 7 for some reason? To be fully half of 14?). 20 % 40 = 8.

You think the Diminishing Returns model makes no sense for navies?
Different strength values for naval units is interesting.
Is it possible to set different strength values by default, without needing cumbersome events? Say, done in the unit file. That could have interesting applications, especially because I saw it's possible to have over 100 strength values.