Too many Orders of Battle (Full Version)

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



Message


zgrssd -> Too many Orders of Battle (6/21/2020 12:48:05 PM)

Feedback:
There are plain simply too many distinct Orders Of Battle in the game. There are just too many combinations.

First a list of the multipliers
Infantry: 3 (None, Foot or APC). Could go to 5 more if you include Motorcycles or Cavalry later.
Tanks: 4 (None, Light, Medium/TH, Heavy/AG, Monitor)
Trucks: 2 (Yes or No)
Too many weapon Systems (MG, AT-Guns, Artillery, Bazooka, Scouting Buggies): 2 each (yes or no).

So my guessy math is:
3x4x2x2^5*

*That is 2 to the power of 5. Or 32.

So I get ~768 distinct OOB's. I think I got a few too many, but it is still in the right order of magninude - hunrdreds.

I asume
- they are a pain to write down for Vic.
- The are a pain to load from the disk/load from the savegame
- They are a pain to discover and Institutionalize over and over.
- it is a pain to find the right one, once you got a few.
- And often those barely varry in anything. Basically "10% of subunits replaced by MG/arty/Tank/whatever".
- And then there is things like "wait, we can put infantry onto trucks if they move together with a [Tank/APC/other selfdriving thing] as well?"
- it will only get worse as more Models are being added
- and there are propably a number of them still missing as well

Sugestion:
I sugest there to be a number of basic OOBs. Stuff equivalent to the Light Infantry or Pure Tank Army. One Base OOB for each Primary unit type.
And then all those other things, are just options we toggle when raising or managing the unit. Want 10% of Primary Subunits replaced with RPG/MG/Artrillery? Maybe each of the above? A simple option to toggle.
Want one of the 4 Tank options? A group of 4 toggles for that as well.
No worries about Indepdant units either. Those options could still need some development to unlock. And for offensive use, a Indepdant unit that is attached is usually better. (shelling with a Indy Arty is better to still have attack capability).




Cornuthaum -> RE: Too many Orders of Battle (6/21/2020 1:48:56 PM)

Your math is off.

For infantry OOBs

infantry: yes/no
infantry: type (everything from light infantry to heavy grenadiers)
organic artillery: yes/no
infantry motorization: none/truck/APC (you can't have APCs and Trucks - it's always (base infantry model) that is either on foot, motorized and mechanized)


armor: yes/no
armor type: light hull/medium hull/heavy hull
attached infantry: yes/no
attached infantry: type






zgrssd -> RE: Too many Orders of Battle (6/21/2020 1:55:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cornuthaum

Your math is off.

For infantry OOBs

infantry: yes/no
infantry: type (everything from light infantry to heavy grenadiers)
organic artillery: yes/no
infantry motorization: none/truck/APC (you can't have APCs and Trucks - it's always (base infantry model) that is either on foot, motorized and mechanized)


armor: yes/no
armor type: light hull/medium hull/heavy hull
attached infantry: yes/no
attached infantry: type




When we can not even figure out anymore how many there are, there are definitely too many [:D]




ramnblam -> RE: Too many Orders of Battle (6/21/2020 2:11:35 PM)

Isn't the reason for this being the case to randomize what the player gets? Just like the tech you can't predict what you're going to get so you have to adjust and make do just like with resources and terrain.




76mm -> RE: Too many Orders of Battle (6/21/2020 5:21:13 PM)

I agree that there are too many OOBs. I'd honestly be happy to get rid of 90% and then have to do research to attach various types of other units to OHQs.

In other words, I have a light infantry brigade...I can then research being able to attach artillery, armor, etc. to it. Also, I would have to research how to attach independent units to an OHQ...maybe get one free attachment, but after that each much be researched, with a cap higher than the current two (3-4, dunno).




zgrssd -> RE: Too many Orders of Battle (6/21/2020 7:11:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ramnblam

Isn't the reason for this being the case to randomize what the player gets? Just like the tech you can't predict what you're going to get so you have to adjust and make do just like with resources and terrain.

There are different kinds of Randomness:
- The one where you roll a 1D6.
- the one where you throw a dart, while blindfolded, without even knowing if there is something to hit in front of you.

OOB feels like the later.




MatthewVilter -> RE: Too many Orders of Battle (6/22/2020 7:13:16 AM)

Yeah, looking at all that math...I think hundreds might be a bit low if you really wanted OOBs even just for all the at least semi-reasonable combinations...


Foot infantry:

Each of rifle, MG, and RPG with or without some support of the other two is 12 basic foot infantry compositions.

Each of those 12 could have organic support from one or two of pretty much any of the other units in the game but even if we limit ourselves reasonably the list might be:
AT gun, artillery, assault gun, heavy tank, monitor tank, tank destroyer, buggy = 7
so (12 * 1 for no organic support) + (12 * 7 for one type of support) + (12 * 7 * 6 for two types of support) = 12 + 84 + 504 = 600 OOBs for foot infantry. [X(]


Mobile Infantry:

Each of rifle, MG, and RPG in trucks or APCs -or- motorbike infantry with or without some support of one or two of of the others (limited to trucks or APCs) is...79 basic mobile infantry compositions I think.

Each of those 79 really could have organic support from one or two of pretty much any of the other units in the game...let's see if we just add a few to the list above:
7 + light tank, medium tank, SPG = 10
so (79 * 1 for no organic support) + (79 * 10 for one type of support) + (79 * 10 * 9 for two types of support) = 79 + 790 + 7110 = 7,979 OOBs for mobile infantry. [8|]


I could go on to armored formations but yeah...
(I mean I haven't even been including jetpacks, robots, walkers, and rockets.)



Doing this math has actually convinced me that the only real path forwards must lie in some combination of customizability and procgen.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.613281E-02