Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Let us talk about Unit Design

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> War Room >> Let us talk about Unit Design Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Let us talk about Unit Design - 6/13/2020 12:11:53 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
This is a very complicated mater and it might not actually work out as intended yet, but this is what I gather:

Original, Previous and Subsequent designs:
There is the Original design. The "Mark 1" of every Model Line.
Then there will be a bunch of Previous and Subsequent designs.
When you make the Mark 2, the Mark 2 is the Subsequent design and the Mark 1/Original is the previous design.
In later itterations that does not have to be the case. You may skip a Mark 3, because is did not improove anything on the Mark 2 and you never deployed it. Wich means the Mark 4 may be based on the Mark 2 again.

Strucutral Design:
As the value is between 70 and 130, the average would be 100.

Original Design:
"The Structural Design Score is randomized with the first version of a Model and will not change with subsequent versions." - 5.12.3.6

Subsequent Designs:
This value is fixed, for a model line. It will not change.
If you want a higher value, you have to start a new line from scratch, meaning you are rolling a new base design and do new field testing. Indeed it is the one reason to start a new line.

Base Design:
Also sometimes called "Field Testing". All other important values are based on it (and Structural Design).

Original Design:
The Value is Randomized between 70 and 100.
While a high value is better, field useage will work out any "kinks".
But even the best design is not so good, that field experience can not make it better.

Subsequent Design:
The Previous Designs Base Design + Field testing done with the design. This value will only go up until it will hit 130 eventually.

Weapon/Armor/Engine Design
The formula for all 3 is:
(Base Design / 2) + 4D20, then "modified by structural design" - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4830993
Note that the large amount dice used, will result in a very strong trend towards the average of (Base Design / 2) + 42. The more dice you roll, the less likely extremely high or low results are.

Original Design:
These values will be rolled once, then used. The values can be as low as 35+4 = 39 (minimum base design and roll) or as high as 50+80 = 130 (highest base design and roll). With a average around 85/2+42 = 42.5 + 42 = 84.5 - so 84/85 equally likely. (all before Strutural design)

Subsequent Design:
These values will be rolled based on the (propably improoved) base design. They are then compared to the previous design values - and wichever one is higher will be used.
So they will never decrease, but are not guaranteed to increase either - if you roll lower, it just stays by the previous design values.
At maximum base design of 130, these values can go up to 130/2 +80 = 75+80 = 155, before structural design. But such a high result is extremly imporable. 75+42 = 117 seems to be something you can expect to get.

Weapon Design:
This value is applied to the Weapons Soft Attack and Hard Attack values. If you want real life examples for bad designs, see the M16 Rifle and the Mark 14 Torpedo.

It does not seem to have any effect on the Calliber/Armor calculations.

Armor Design:
This value is applied to the Units Hitpoints, wich is derived from the base unit and the Armor equipped.

It does not seem to have any effect on the Calliber/Armor calculations.

Engine Design:
This is applied to the engines Carry Weight. Wich is then used against the fixed weight of all gear (engine included) to get the mobility Modifier (5.12.3.7).

Just because you mandated a strong engine, does not mean the designers can not still mess up:
Gears, Transmission, Cooling, weight distribution, Fuel/Electrical Lines or Fuel Tank/Battery sizes on the unit.
And that is before we come to the point where the production model could be a good 10-20% heavier then the design goal had anticipated! (wich is modelled via a weak engine currently).

Field Testing Redesign:
After some amount of field testing, just doing a design pass on the same gear is worth considering. With the higher base design, there is a decent chance you will get better rolsl for Armor, Weapon or Engine design.

Empty Redesign:
If you feel the Weapon, Armor or Engine Design rolls are too low for the Base and Structural design, you could just make another design pass without even deploying it.
You may want to go to the previosu design, however. As the chancesa are good that you got some field testing done since you started the design you do not want to keep.

Changing Gear:
Especially early on, you will often change the gear. Infantry with Automatic Rifles and Combat armor are usually a good goal.
Doing so does mean that a large part of the Field Testing will not be applied to the new models Base Design. The increase in stats should usually be worth it, of course. But it is something worth keeping in mind and do not change gear without purpose.

Practical Example for new design:
With a structural design of 87, the Grunt was Garbage. Not worth developing further.
So I made a new design from scratch, wich came out as the Soldier-at-Arms. The only change I made, was upgrading the Armor from Enviro Suit to Padded Enviro Suit (+50 to +100 HP)

Strucutral Design was a new roll, that ended up being above 100 and a good 20 better then the Grunt.
Base Design for the Grunt 2 would have been 80+15 Field Testing=95. But a lot of that would have been lost by changing armor.
And SaA's 91 BD score still is acceptable compared to that. It will keep going up the more I field it.
Weapon Design made a jump of 16. So despite the weapon staying the same, they can use it a lot better. Also note that with a Firepower of 100, the Soft Defense value seems to match exatly the WD score.
Armor Design had a slight decrease from 91 to 90, but with the better armor that still more total HP. Also note how HP with a Armour Strenght of 100 eactly equals Armor Design.
The Grunt 2 could not have gotten lower then 91 (and might have rolled higher then that), but the value is comparable enough.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 6/13/2020 12:25:21 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 6/14/2020 10:44:56 PM   
ramnblam

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 6/9/2020
From: Australia
Status: offline
Great post man, so with vehicles you add the weight of the weapon, armour and engine and you want the engine power to be greater than those values combined?

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 2
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 6/14/2020 11:16:26 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ramnblam

Great post man, so with vehicles you add the weight of the weapon, armour and engine and you want the engine power to be greater than those values combined?

You also have to account for the vehicles own weight (wich you do not know prior to 1st design). The weight in the Design Log is also a running total, not per-item (really got me confused at first).

The big issue is the design roll. The rated engine is only one part- how the engine roll lends up really changes things. There are three options:
Put in a way overpowered engine, then you do not need to worry how the designers roll.

Try to get a engine just in the right ballpark. And hope the designers to not roll too badly.

Make mobility your "dump stat". Especially heavy tanks are notorious for their slow strategic movement.
Just do not let effective engine power drop below 20% weight, or you can not move at all (except startegic redeployment). Unless of course you want to make something like the Auto-turrets.

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 6/14/2020 11:17:12 PM >

(in reply to ramnblam)
Post #: 3
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 6/15/2020 12:04:39 AM   
ramnblam

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 6/9/2020
From: Australia
Status: offline
I think my biggest issue has been putting too much armour on my vehicles, especially light tanks I had doing force recon type activities.

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 4
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 6/15/2020 2:21:15 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ramnblam

I think my biggest issue has been putting too much armour on my vehicles, especially light tanks I had doing force recon type activities.

"Recon in force" can be done by buggies. Or even Motorcycles. If you choose to use a tank, you did so because of the armor.

And armor is not to be underestimated. The game has a whole "calliber vs armor thickness" modifier. 200mm Armor will give a -90% to all bullets.

(in reply to ramnblam)
Post #: 5
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 6/15/2020 2:51:51 PM   
GodwinW


Posts: 510
Joined: 6/5/2020
Status: offline
Also beware new tech discoveries that you may want to incorporate in new designs, such as improvements or new Recon tech or so.

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 6
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 6/15/2020 3:25:50 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

Also beware new tech discoveries that you may want to incorporate in new designs, such as improvements or new Recon tech or so.

Why be wary of them?

Do you mean "do not forget to make a new design to actually use them"?

(in reply to GodwinW)
Post #: 7
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 6/16/2020 3:59:11 AM   
Bremen

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 6/12/2020
Status: offline
I didn't realize it at first, but you can view the total weight of all equipment of a unit by mousing over the equipment stats (above the button to select that equipment). Made it much easier to design effective vehicles.

Also note that being overweight for your engine also increases fuel use considerably, so using an underweight engine doesn't save on fuel like I had hoped.

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 8
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 6/16/2020 11:38:16 AM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bremen

I didn't realize it at first, but you can view the total weight of all equipment of a unit by mousing over the equipment stats (above the button to select that equipment). Made it much easier to design effective vehicles.

Also note that being overweight for your engine also increases fuel use considerably, so using an underweight engine doesn't save on fuel like I had hoped.

The fuel thing might actually be a display bug in the Model Designer part:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4831129
Changelist to v1.03-beta2:
-Fixed preview of Fuel use in Model Designer

It is kinda hard to figure out what is intentional and what a bug at times :)

Really nice information on that total weight information. It even seems to include the part you are hovering over! Hopefully he will make it a more prominent figure later on.

(in reply to Bremen)
Post #: 9
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 6/16/2020 1:52:45 PM   
GodwinW


Posts: 510
Joined: 6/5/2020
Status: offline
Yes that is what I mean.

@Bremen: thanks, useful!

< Message edited by GodwinW -- 6/16/2020 1:53:49 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 10
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 6/21/2020 4:39:34 AM   
hagamablabla_slith

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 6/19/2020
Status: offline
Say I have a model that is at ~120 for weapons/armor/engine design, as well as ~120 structural design. Is there ever a reason for me to use a new line other than increased tech bonuses? It seems like it would make more sense for me to always build models in this line, since any new models in this line will at worst still have the same design stats but with better equipment, saving me the need to field test to get better design stats.

< Message edited by hagamablabla_slith -- 6/21/2020 4:40:13 AM >

(in reply to GodwinW)
Post #: 11
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 6/21/2020 10:22:59 AM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hagamablabla_slith

Say I have a model that is at ~120 for weapons/armor/engine design, as well as ~120 structural design. Is there ever a reason for me to use a new line other than increased tech bonuses? It seems like it would make more sense for me to always build models in this line, since any new models in this line will at worst still have the same design stats but with better equipment, saving me the need to field test to get better design stats.

- Structural design (and maybe some limitations for swapping out gear, if those ever come*) should be the only reason you ever roll a new design Line.
- To my knowledge, stuff like Sideskirts and Linear Techs can be fully worked into a line with a conventional Design pass. Even one that has no field testing done*.
- New Base Design: You could in theory roll something higher then 120 on structural design. It is 69+1D61 I think (or a 70+D60 that starts at zero). That would give you 10/60 = 1/6 chance to roll higher. But it oculd also be multiple smaler dice like with the Sub Designs.
But in general 120 Structural Design is a "keeper" unless I literally have nothing else left to design. I like to say: "Do not try to reinvent the wheel, if you got a gassed up car with keys in the ignition just standing right there."
- 120 weapons/armor/engine design is differently. It if you are a top base design, average would be 117. And you can reroll it without needing a new base design. And there is a decent chance to roll higher.

*I feel tank line should be fully upgradeable. We have the M1 Abrams as a rolling real life example for this. But in turn, there may be some limitation on changing up the general types of gears (like not from Howtizer to High Vecolity or vice versa). We have to see if Vic things the same.

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 6/21/2020 10:26:18 AM >

(in reply to hagamablabla_slith)
Post #: 12
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 6/21/2020 6:05:26 PM   
hagamablabla_slith

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 6/19/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
- 120 weapons/armor/engine design is differently. It if you are a top base design, average would be 117. And you can reroll it without needing a new base design. And there is a decent chance to roll higher.


You're right, I probably should have said ~150 or something. But basically, if all 4 design stats are optimal already, there's no reason to make new lines besides new tech, correct?

Also another question, field testing only affects future design rolls right? The way I understand it, field testing doesn't affect the stats of the model being tested.

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 13
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 6/21/2020 7:08:00 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hagamablabla_slith


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
- 120 weapons/armor/engine design is differently. It if you are a top base design, average would be 117. And you can reroll it without needing a new base design. And there is a decent chance to roll higher.


You're right, I probably should have said ~150 or something. But basically, if all 4 design stats are optimal already, there's no reason to make new lines besides new tech, correct?

Also another question, field testing only affects future design rolls right? The way I understand it, field testing doesn't affect the stats of the model being tested.

- Again: You do not need a new base design for tech advance! Just make a design pass. Anything that can be worked into the unit (Sidesckirts, Amor, Fuel and AP optimisation) will be worked into the unit.
- Yes, Field testing only exists to get the base design up. Wich is used as the basis for those 3 subrolls.


(in reply to hagamablabla_slith)
Post #: 14
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 6/23/2020 5:46:06 AM   
mek42

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 7/27/2007
From: Upstate (Central) NY
Status: offline
I need to figure out how to get that view. Clicking between design detail tabs sucks.

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 15
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 6/23/2020 11:26:48 AM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mek42

I need to figure out how to get that view. Clicking between design detail tabs sucks.

Do you mean you have been looking at the design log thus far? Yes, that would be bad.
The only screenshoot here is of:
Management -> Models -> Design Tab

I barely use the other ones. Quality to set up removal. Techs to verify if addons are worked in.
Op and Prdocution cost? Can not remember looking at them.

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 6/23/2020 11:27:36 AM >

(in reply to mek42)
Post #: 16
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 6/24/2020 11:13:10 PM   
mek42

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 7/27/2007
From: Upstate (Central) NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: mek42

I need to figure out how to get that view. Clicking between design detail tabs sucks.

Do you mean you have been looking at the design log thus far? Yes, that would be bad.
The only screenshoot here is of:
Management -> Models -> Design Tab

I barely use the other ones. Quality to set up removal. Techs to verify if addons are worked in.
Op and Prdocution cost? Can not remember looking at them.


Got it, thanks!

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 17
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 8/3/2020 3:29:18 AM   
HansLemurson

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 7/28/2020
Status: offline
Does field-testing affect the Base-Design score of active models, or only of future designs?
If so, does it ever make sense to create a new model-version just to incorporate the Field-Testing changes without any new technology?

(in reply to mek42)
Post #: 18
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 8/3/2020 3:54:15 AM   
demiare

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 6/20/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansLemurson

Does field-testing affect the Base-Design score of active models, or only of future designs?
If so, does it ever make sense to create a new model-version just to incorporate the Field-Testing changes without any new technology?


1) Only future designs are affected.
2) Depend on your BP generation & amount of work for model council, as each upgrade will cost you more and more. In theory - yes, in practice not always (IMHO :P).
My rule of thumb is ~80% field testing => I'm upgrading if have no other things for urgent development (like light tanks or dire need for something against enemy tanks). Field testing seems to be non-linear so even after a lot of fights it's almost not growing past ~75-80%.
Also take in mind structural roll. If it's really low (<90) I would prefer to try getting a new line instead. Anything more then average (100+) is good, higher then 115-120 is awesome.

(in reply to HansLemurson)
Post #: 19
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 8/8/2020 2:23:54 PM   
Destragon

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 6/8/2020
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

When you make the Mark 2, the Mark 2 is the Subsequent design and the Mark 1/Original is the previous design.
In later itterations that does not have to be the case. You may skip a Mark 3, because is did not improove anything on the Mark 2 and you never deployed it. Wich means the Mark 4 may be based on the Mark 2 again.

How would you base mark 4 on mark 2? Does this happen automatically?

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 20
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 8/9/2020 12:55:33 AM   
HansLemurson

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 7/28/2020
Status: offline
How much does the BP cost of new versions increase with each revision?

The data I've gathered so far is:
New Models
- First Model: 2x Base Cost
- Second Model: 4x Base Cost
- Third Model: 10x Base Cost
- Fourth Model: 20x Base Cost
- Fifth Model: ?x Base Cost
Revisions
- MkII Revision: 1x Base Cost
- MkIII Revision: 2x Base Cost
- MkIV Revision: 4x Base Cost
- MkV Revision: ?x Base Cost

Not quite enough data to figure out the formula, but it looks like the prices increase sharply!

< Message edited by HansLemurson -- 9/7/2020 11:30:43 PM >

(in reply to Destragon)
Post #: 21
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 8/10/2020 9:01:30 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Destragon


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

When you make the Mark 2, the Mark 2 is the Subsequent design and the Mark 1/Original is the previous design.
In later itterations that does not have to be the case. You may skip a Mark 3, because is did not improove anything on the Mark 2 and you never deployed it. Wich means the Mark 4 may be based on the Mark 2 again.

How would you base mark 4 on mark 2? Does this happen automatically?

I was 90% certain it was possible.
But in the end, all that Field testing does is guarantee a increase of Base Design. Wich will trend upwards towards the maximum anyway.

(in reply to Destragon)
Post #: 22
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 8/10/2020 9:28:25 PM   
HansLemurson

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 7/28/2020
Status: offline
This means though that researching a new Model that you never deploy is actively harmful to your war effort, since it cuts off the flow of Field Testing into the design you were actually going to use. That sucks.

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 23
RE: Let us talk about Unit Design - 8/10/2020 10:22:27 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 1492
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansLemurson

This means though that researching a new Model that you never deploy is actively harmful to your war effort, since it cuts off the flow of Field Testing into the design you were actually going to use. That sucks.

Then do not develop a new design, if you are not 100% sure you will field it. Especially for vehicles (and other things you can only repalce, not upgrade), waiting is generally a good idea.

(in reply to HansLemurson)
Post #: 24
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> War Room >> Let us talk about Unit Design Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.160