Alpha Centauri 2

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri & Alien Crossfire => The Theory of Everything => Topic started by: Question on October 04, 2014, 03:12:56 PM

Title: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Question on October 04, 2014, 03:12:56 PM

Assuming you do not have a massive tech advantage? Or need AAA cruisers to escort a carrier or something.

Sea units are much more expensive with armor but they get no terrain bonuses and since cruisers can move 6 (or 8 with the maritime project) it is very easy to rush over and take out even silksteel cruisers with missles cruisers.

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Nexii on October 04, 2014, 06:00:44 PM

With default unit cost mode, all armored units aren't worth it.  I think ideally sea fungus should be moddable to give some defensive bonus like land.  But it's probably low priority for Yitzi, a new combat mechanic probably wouldn't be so easy for what it's worth.

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Question on October 04, 2014, 06:13:43 PM

But if you dont use any armor units at all isnt it just a matter of whoever has the fastest units win because they can attack first?

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Nexii on October 04, 2014, 06:39:39 PM

Yes, pretty much.  Which is why I play with a cost mode where unit cost = chassis factor only.  Reactor, weapon, armor, and abilities don't play into cost.  It's a bit extreme but with this costing system it's more a choice of chassis and abilities.  It also makes the weapon and armor techs much more crucial.  Avoiding them in favor of economic techs becomes very risky.

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Question on October 04, 2014, 06:42:47 PM

That has the side effect of making everyone spam the fully armored rovers and air units though...

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Nexii on October 04, 2014, 06:50:13 PM

Not if you cost faster chassis at higher price.  I use Infantry - 20, Rover - 30, Air - 40.  Then infantry is more efficient and very good for defense.  Arguably rovers could be fairly costed at 40 also.  It really depends what combat modifiers you tweak.  One big difference with 'free' armor is that units rarely win a battle with high hitpoints.  Counter attacks and sheer number of units become important also.

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Lord Avalon on October 04, 2014, 11:39:06 PM

As I play SP on large-huge maps, I do put armor on many naval units. Synthmetal & plama don't provide a whole lot of protection, but they do turn a transport or probe ship into a combat unit, so trance is now useful. I don't usually put armor on basic sea formers, but I might on a few.

Silksteel is really the first armor that's worthwhile. When you get to fusion reactors, then I think having armor is more worth it. You may or may not be able to afford upgrading, but new units can get some armor for free. Like adding plasma to sea formers.

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Nexii on October 05, 2014, 12:43:16 AM

Good points, I've noted this as well.  In my system I ended up weakening some abilities due to Cost:0 (Trance I'm trying at 25% lately).  I feel it might be an oversight that armored units count as combat units even if they have a non-combat weapon module.  Shouldn't the combat/non-combat flag be based on the weapon module alone?

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Lord Avalon on October 05, 2014, 01:29:17 AM

Maybe, but then no-weapon ships are completely vulnerable to Isles of the Deep.

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Nexii on October 05, 2014, 01:57:31 AM

50,      ; Combat penalty % -> Non-combat unit defending vs. combat unit {-32768 to 100}

This line in alphax.txt can fix that.  I do agree 50% is a pretty steep default.  You could put this to less, maybe 25% or 0%.  Sea is trickier than land since sensors don't work there.

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Yitzi on October 05, 2014, 05:00:35 AM

Quote from: Nexii on October 04, 2014, 06:00:44 PM

With default unit cost mode, all armored units aren't worth it.

They can be if boosted by perimeter defense or the like, particularly if your defensive techs keep pace with offensive techs (hab complexes at silksteel would likely help a lot.)

Quote

But it's probably low priority for Yitzi, a new combat mechanic probably wouldn't be so easy for what it's worth.

Actually, new combat mechanics aren't that difficult unless they're really complicated, and some new combat mechanics are in fact on my list.

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Question on October 05, 2014, 05:10:03 AM

Yea the problem is that out in the sea, you can have cruisers rush 6 hexes to hit you and all the enemy needs is a cheap spotter which can be a 1/1 foil or cruiser with deep radar or an air unit. Even a super expensive photon wall cruiser will lose to cheap missle cruisers and there are no terrain defence bonuses out on the sea.

Do people in MP just spam unarmored units all the time? Doesnt that result in lots of casaulties?

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Nexii on October 05, 2014, 11:47:37 AM

The safe spot for naval units should be inside sea bases.  Naval yard gives +100% defense for sea vs sea.  Similar for land units w/Perimeters.

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Question on October 05, 2014, 12:53:57 PM

Well yes but what about naval combat in the oceans?

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Nexii on October 05, 2014, 01:14:09 PM

In the open the attacker will usually win.  Which I think is as it should be, otherwise you get really stalemated positions.  If you really want a more defensive combat system then you'd have to put weapon:armor ratios closer to 1:1.  I think that's also doable if you lessen some defensive modifiers.

Edit: You can also put AAA-air units on top of sea units in the open.

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Question on October 05, 2014, 02:35:23 PM

But if the attacker wins all the time with the massive 2:1 combat strength advantage, doesnt that just promote having both sides hide just out of range trying to get each other to move close enough so he can attack on his turn?

E.G. If both players have cruisers that move 6, they hide 8 tiles away and just wait for each other to move closer. Whoever moves closer first will be in range of artillery attacks and will lose. (Assuming both players have a way of spotting each other at 8 tiles away).

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Yitzi on October 05, 2014, 03:25:03 PM

Quote from: Question on October 05, 2014, 12:53:57 PM

Well yes but what about naval combat in the oceans?

It's still no more attacker-favored than many cases of land combat out in the field...

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: gwillybj on October 05, 2014, 05:07:39 PM

Quote from: Question on October 04, 2014, 03:12:56 PM

Assuming you do not have a massive tech advantage? Or need AAA cruisers to escort a carrier or something.

Sea units are much more expensive with armor but they get no terrain bonuses and since cruisers can move 6 (or 8 with the maritime project) it is very easy to rush over and take out even silksteel cruisers with missles cruisers.

But if you dont use any armor units at all isnt it just a matter of whoever has the fastest units win because they can attack first?

That has the side effect of making everyone spam the fully armored rovers and air units though...

Yea the problem is that out in the sea, you can have cruisers rush 6 hexes to hit you and all the enemy needs is a cheap spotter which can be a 1/1 foil or cruiser with deep radar or an air unit. Even a super expensive photon wall cruiser will lose to cheap missle cruisers and there are no terrain defence bonuses out on the sea.

Well yes but what about naval combat in the oceans?

But if the attacker wins all the time with the massive 2:1 combat strength advantage, doesnt that just promote having both sides hide just out of range trying to get each other to move close enough so he can attack on his turn?

E.G. If both players have cruisers that move 6, they hide 8 tiles away and just wait for each other to move closer. Whoever moves closer first will be in range of artillery attacks and will lose. (Assuming both players have a way of spotting each other at 8 tiles away).

I suspect all these things kept Admirals Yamamoto and Nimitz awake many a long night.

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Nexii on October 05, 2014, 07:21:56 PM

Quote from: gwillybj on October 05, 2014, 05:07:39 PM

I suspect all these things kept Admirals Yamamoto and Nimitz awake many a long night.

LOL well actually many WW2 naval battles did play out like this.  Scouting and air cover were big factors. 

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: JarlWolf on October 06, 2014, 03:34:58 AM

I've actually found armour is be very useful if you use it properly and adjust your tactics with it- if you take hold of fortified positions you can deny them movement and even kill their units if you couple it with defences.. and I typically make armoured rovers regardless so I get a heavy mobile force that I can both attack and defend with. The fact rovers can pull out if too heavily damaged helps with this further.

As for naval units, I typically armour them regardless, because until you get with larger cruiser and very advanced weaponry, having even a small advantage in combat and defence is crucial as sea units are typically expensive or difficult to produce, more so then land units. Once Cruisers come about, its hit and miss I find.

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Question on October 06, 2014, 06:52:53 AM

Quote from: Yitzi on October 05, 2014, 03:25:03 PM

Quote from: Question on October 05, 2014, 12:53:57 PM

Well yes but what about naval combat in the oceans?

It's still no more attacker-favored than many cases of land combat out in the field...

Well with land, you still get terrain defence bonuses and only air units can move really far. You can still see enemy rovers coming and even hit them with your own artillery before they get next to you.

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: gwillybj on October 06, 2014, 12:27:27 PM

Quote from: Question on October 06, 2014, 06:52:53 AM

Quote from: Yitzi on October 05, 2014, 03:25:03 PM

Quote from: Question on October 05, 2014, 12:53:57 PM

Well yes but what about naval combat in the oceans?

It's still no more attacker-favored than many cases of land combat out in the field...

Well with land, you still get terrain defence bonuses and only air units can move really far. You can still see enemy rovers coming and even hit them with your own artillery before they get next to you.

Again, something Rommel and Montgomery fretted over in North Africa.

You're learning well how to be a careful General/Admiral/CiC.

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Question on October 06, 2014, 10:25:17 PM

I noticed some interesting things about how naval combat wroks.

I never really noticed before but when a naval combat unit bombards another naval combat unit, they both use weapon values even though the combat screen shows the defender using armor. So a 6-3 foil  that gets bombarded will fight back at combat strength 6 even though the screen says Plasma steel armor : 3. In other wrods, theres even less of a reason to put armor on ships now since if they get bombarded by enemy naval, they will fight back with their weapons. The AI doesnt use naval units to bombard enemy naval though...

For naval units without a weapon (transports, formers, etc), they get bombarded like land units. Depending on weapon vs armor values, this may mean that a non-combat naval unit may take tons of turns to reduce to 0 via naval bombardment. This is made complicated by the fact that weaponless naval units get a 50% open grounds defence bonus on sea tiles but any armor removes the -50% non combat penalty.

Whats especially surprising is naval bombardment vs psi sea units is resolved as weapon strength vs psi defence 1, making it very easy to instagib psi sea units.

Lots of other bugs too...

But what do people do in MP, do they just ignore armor on most units and try to get the first hit in? How does that work when you have two players just camping right out of each other's range and refusing to attack, since whoever moves first is at a disadvantage?

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Yitzi on October 06, 2014, 10:58:58 PM

Quote from: Question on October 06, 2014, 10:25:17 PM

I noticed some interesting things about how naval combat wroks.

I never really noticed before but when a naval combat unit bombards another naval combat unit, they both use weapon values even though the combat screen shows the defender using armor. So a 6-3 foil  that gets bombarded will fight back at combat strength 6 even though the screen says Plasma steel armor : 3. In other wrods, theres even less of a reason to put armor on ships now since if they get bombarded by enemy naval, they will fight back with their weapons. The AI doesnt use naval units to bombard enemy naval though...

Yes, that's probably due to it technically being an artillery duel, and the messed-up display is a bug.

Quote

For naval units without a weapon (transports, formers, etc), they get bombarded like land units.

So do isles of the deep, I think.

Quote

Whats especially surprising is naval bombardment vs psi sea units is resolved as weapon strength vs psi defence 1, making it very easy to instagib psi sea units.

Yeah, I think it was decided it's not a bug, but I've still got it on the list to make it changeable.

Title: Re: Is there any reason to make sea units with armor?
Post by: Nexii on October 06, 2014, 11:18:39 PM

Elite or +Move can give the first strike in MP.  It's not always stalemates, if you can sneak a copter close you can wipe out large stacks with ease.  With default costing model you wouldn't even make sea units in most cases though.  Air just does everything better for less.  Whether you win or lose a war will pretty much come down to what chassis you have available though (rover, needle, then copter).  The weapon, armor, and unit ability techs tend to be mostly irrelevant.  Reactor can be somewhat helpful for the cost reduction.

I recommend trying what I've been playing with: a flat combat costing model where unit costs depend solely on the chassis.  I've found it to be more strategic in terms of having to pick a variety of units, and easier to balance around.  Yitzi put in unit cost modes that can cover about anything you want to try though. 

Armor shouldn't remove the non combat penalty, I think this is an oversight.  Similar things with PSI/artillery, I think Yitzi brought these up for discussion.  Most of them make artillery a bit too strong and were also oversights.  There's also similar imbalances with native life cost which I've brought up - native life can also be re-costed to be more viable.  Only probe probably remains as largely ineffective in war, though very useful for infiltrate and tech steal.  Probe gets more important with unit re-costing however as base facilities giving defense become more crucial.