Open Beta Patch v1.26o2 (12 may 2025)

[DasTactic]

-Heavier artillery + Heavier AT + Heavier Flak guns get a reduction in movement due to a movement penalty for heavy weight & resulting manhandling of equipment (going up to about 75% movement cost penalty for the heaviest of guns)*
-Any equipment (like artillery, at gun) being carried with such a negative movement penalty will retain this penalty when being transported (by like trucks) unless the transporters have a positive movement bonus (due to powerful engines) which will offset the negative penalty of the guns.

This doesn't seem to be working. All trucks no matter the engine size give a +20% movement bonus. I tried an experiment with 150mm artillery that had a movement penalty of -36% and a weight of 310 (btw, weight should show on the Blueprint).

Trucks with Light Engines had a movement modifier of +20% and engine power of 200.

Trucks with Heavy Engines had a movement modifier of +20% and engine power of 400.

My assumption would be that 400 power engines pulling 310 weight would work correctly and that 200 power engine pulling 310 weight would struggle. But they both do exactly the same so it looks to be the movement bonus that is applied and not the engine power. So there is no reason to build trucks with more than a light engine - unless I'mm misunderstanding what is going on.

[zgrssd]

-Heavier artillery + Heavier AT + Heavier Flak guns get a reduction in movement due to a movement penalty for heavy weight & resulting manhandling of equipment (going up to about 75% movement cost penalty for the heaviest of guns)*
-Any equipment (like artillery, at gun) being carried with such a negative movement penalty will retain this penalty when being transported (by like trucks) unless the transporters have a positive movement bonus (due to powerful engines) which will offset the negative penalty of the guns.

This doesn't seem to be working. All trucks no matter the engine size give a +20% movement bonus. I tried an experiment with 150mm artillery that had a movement penalty of -36% and a weight of 310 (btw, weight should show on the Blueprint).

Trucks with Light Engines had a movement modifier of +20% and engine power of 200.

Trucks with Heavy Engines had a movement modifier of +20% and engine power of 400.

My assumption would be that 400 power engines pulling 310 weight would work correctly and that 200 power engine pulling 310 weight would struggle. But they both do exactly the same so it looks to be the movement bonus that is applied and not the engine power. So there is no reason to build trucks with more than a light engine - unless I'mm misunderstanding what is going on.

-Any equipment (like artillery, at gun) being carried with such a negative movement penalty will retain this penalty when being transported (by like trucks) unless the transporters have a positive movement bonus (due to powerful engines) which will offset the negative penalty of the guns.

It is adding the percentile movement modifiers.

[DasTactic]

-Any equipment (like artillery, at gun) being carried with such a negative movement penalty will retain this penalty when being transported (by like trucks) unless the transporters have a positive movement bonus (due to powerful engines) which will offset the negative penalty of the guns.

It is adding the percentile movement modifiers.

Yes, but if all the trucks no matter what engine size give +20% then the bracketed '(due to powerful engines)' doesn't have any meaning and there is no point in designing different models of trucks.

[Don_Kiyote]

Trucks with Light Engines had a movement modifier of +20% and engine power of 200.

Trucks with Heavy Engines had a movement modifier of +20% and engine power of 400.

Do Gun designs have a stated Move Mod stat now?

I'm not playing atm, but seeing this^ stuff about Artillery weight finally having an effect, and then the supposition that, at the same time, truck movement modifiers stop working, I wanted to say, I don't see an error yet. Also, can confirm that earlier, at least, Truck AP movement modifiers *were* working. in my game. I once looked quite closely at the motorised units to be sure, and yes, a 10AP hex would only cost 8 AP for those +20 trucks to cross.

Trucks with only light engines, and no weight added, did often have a +20% move mod (ie. -20% AP cost), but not always. Bumping up to a medium engine is without benefit; nb. max +/- mvmd is 20.

Reading the notes, it seems as if this +20mvmd will simply be set against a flat percentage -'n%' mvmd; presumably an attribute of the Gun. So if this Gun-Weight-Offset system is not working, I would expect a report saying " I put a -20 Gun with a +20 truck, and it still moved at +20" something like that.

Unless it's working or not working in some other way

[DeltaV112]

-Heavier artillery + Heavier AT + Heavier Flak guns get a reduction in movement due to a movement penalty for heavy weight & resulting manhandling of equipment (going up to about 75% movement cost penalty for the heaviest of guns)*
-Any equipment (like artillery, at gun) being carried with such a negative movement penalty will retain this penalty when being transported (by like trucks) unless the transporters have a positive movement bonus (due to powerful engines) which will offset the negative penalty of the guns.

This doesn't seem to be working. All trucks no matter the engine size give a +20% movement bonus. I tried an experiment with 150mm artillery that had a movement penalty of -36% and a weight of 310 (btw, weight should show on the Blueprint).

Trucks with Light Engines had a movement modifier of +20% and engine power of 200.

Trucks with Heavy Engines had a movement modifier of +20% and engine power of 400.

My assumption would be that 400 power engines pulling 310 weight would work correctly and that 200 power engine pulling 310 weight would struggle. But they both do exactly the same so it looks to be the movement bonus that is applied and not the engine power. So there is no reason to build trucks with more than a light engine - unless I'mm misunderstanding what is going on.

Isn't this a pretty direct outcome of the mechanics? Trucks have very low weight so they can get the +20% modifier fairly easily, which is the highest modifier possible. That's added with the move penalty of the guns, so a 150mm gun can never have a move modifier better than (20%-36%)=-16%. The change should probably be to increase the highest move modifiers possible so that trucks could be built having a +25% or +30% modifier.

[zgrssd]

Right, -20% cost/+20% move was the maximum.
+70% cost/-70% move was the minimum.

[Vic]

Subversion H brings some minor rule finetunings and some private Economy + AI improvements.

[Vic]

I agree that Truck (and in some measure APC) should have some "simulated weight" added for determining their move penalty/bonus. For next version.

[solops]

“Attach” or “Detach” Advisor now only possible once per round (in line now with regular kind of switches that have a 1 round delay) *

Why? This is an administrative detail. The delays mentioned I understand (not sure if they are warranted, but don't really care) but why limit the number of attach/detaches? It does not make much sense and it is a major micromanagement pain.

[zgrssd]

“Attach” or “Detach” Advisor now only possible once per round (in line now with regular kind of switches that have a 1 round delay) *

Why? This is an administrative detail. The delays mentioned I understand (not sure if they are warranted, but don't really care) but why limit the number of attach/detaches? It does not make much sense and it is a major micromanagement pain.

It literally makes micromanagement impossible by only allowing you to assign them once/turn.

IIRC, you could just attached the Advisor for 1 roll, then move them to somebody else for 1 roll, then move them to a 3rd for 1 roll.
It would be a PP cost, but that is still probably now how they were meant to be used.

[solops]

“Attach” or “Detach” Advisor now only possible once per round (in line now with regular kind of switches that have a 1 round delay) *

Why? This is an administrative detail. The delays mentioned I understand (not sure if they are warranted, but don't really care) but why limit the number of attach/detaches? It does not make much sense and it is a major micromanagement pain.

It literally makes micromanagement impossible by only allowing you to assign them once/turn.

IIRC, you could just attached the Advisor for 1 roll, then move them to somebody else for 1 roll, then move them to a 3rd for 1 roll.
It would be a PP cost, but that is still probably now how they were meant to be used.

Yes! Exactly my Point! The new rule turns a one turn reorganization for PP cost into a multi-turn micromanagement marathon. Let's say that for some reason I want to move two advisors around. Perhaps I a got a new advisor or leader or a new artifact that changes stats or someone got killed or whatever. It does not matter why, I just want to do it. After a careful review of my leaders and advisors I decide who goes where. Before, I just paid the PP cost to attach and detach people and transferred folks where they needed to be all at the same time (turn). Now, I have to wait, doing only one transfer action per turn. I not only have to remember who goes where, but I have to remember to actually do it, which is a questionable thing in my life with as much going on as there is in the game and real life. My desk is already cluttered. I don't need to have to keep a pad of paper with personnel transfers written on it. This kind of multi-turn personnel swap is my definition of micromanagement. In real life I am capable of writing more than one transfer memo at a time.

[eddieballgame]

One reason I think this change seems plausible is that Advisors can have a negative impact, over time, per whoever they are attached to. Which would be negated if the old option were in place.
Also, Advisors are limited to 3, I believe; so for gaming purposes this makes sense. imho

[solops]

Five advisors is the most I have had.

[eddieballgame]

Five advisors is the most I have had.

Wow, nice.

[Uemon]

I just upgraded to the latest beta patch 2 days ago and dear god.

The AI is SO MUCH BETTER.

I legit had to stop and think for a few minutes many times and formulate multiple turns strategies in order to overcome AI.

Their troop positioning is multiple times better.
Their troop compositions are MANY times better. I am seeing AI build things like APC infantry, APC anti tank and varity of stuff, not just endless waves of infantry and light tanks. I even saw AI run around with tank destroyers!

I just have one minor/major complaint (depends on how you look at it) at one particular set of AI behaviors.

It is very clear to my decade+ experienced eye of beta testing Paradox games that AI is codded to have a particular suicide thrust movement behavior with very high mobility units. What im describing is when AI sends a single unit that goes through your frontline and gets behind them to cut off a road that feeds your fontline with logistics. In general this is a cool idea when AI uses things like motorbikes or cheap buggies etc. But i think that there might be some kind of error in the code that only considers unit mobility, not its size or combat value. Because im seeing AI throw in APC+infantry that are part of an army to do this. And i question the utility of these moves. Because what happened is i basically set a piece of the frontline to be a trap where if they send a thrust like that in, i encircle them, and instantly kill that unit. Leading to AI essentially feeding me very high IC/resource cost units for basically 0 strategic or tactical gain. I just think that either this thrusting suicide behavior needs to be tone down, or AI needs to be taught to raise cheap throw away untis like motorbikes and do this with those units instead.

[Don_Kiyote]

The AI is SO MUCH BETTER.

I also like what I've seen of the new AI, which is only with 'creeps' so far.

im seeing AI throw in APC+infantry that are part of an army to [encircle]. ... [the] AI needs to be taught to raise cheap throw away units like motorbikes and do this...

IMO, tactically speaking, the need is to support a thrust by filling the gaps behind its movement, if that isn't too much to ask an AI.

[Haplo]

Seems something is wrong with this event (beta patch v1.21h). See atttached screenshot.

Event bug?

se.jpg (151.29 KiB) Viewed 756 times

[Mechasaurian]

Vic, I hope you're having a good day. This is addressed directly to you:

Natural resources (mostly metal) run out too quickly, and soil demetalization is far too powerful/necessary.

Natural resources - metal especially - run out very very quickly. Perversely, multiplayer is a soil demetalization arms race. Every player is forced to account for the time when all the metal is exhausted and demetalization becomes the source of metal income. You're forced to pay a big tax now to not run out later. Even though demetalization is so incredibly expensive, the quick exhaustion of metal deposits makes it just too important to pass up. In multiplayer, a very good indicator of who is ahead, is who has the biggest soil demetalization facility.

IMO, Shadow Empire would be better if there was more reason to care about important assets outside the cities - it would give players tangible things to fight over ("I want that metal!" "I'm not letting you have it!").

This also goes for things like oil and rare metal deposits, but metal deposits are where it's the worst, since the player is always going to be very very hungry for metal.

My suggestion would be:

• Massively increase the amount of natural resources in the deposits. Possibly make them on par with the ice mines, where the amount is finite but so large you could go most of a game without running out. Possibly make them completely inexhaustible.

• Make high-level/high-yield deposits rarer, to compensate.

• Make soil demetalization a higher tier technology than it is currently.

A semi-alternative that I have seen proposed, is making soil demetalization facilities only buildable on depleted mines. Makes mines inexhaustible, provides the strategic location to fight over, and limits the building's effectiveness.

Also, on the subject of having valuable assets outside the cities to fight over, it would be nice if Galactic Republic assets remained relevant through the game (automated factories etc). Perhaps giving us the option to refurbish them when an appropiate technology is researched.

[zgrssd]

Vic, I hope you're having a good day. This is addressed directly to you:

Natural resources (mostly metal) run out too quickly, and soil demetalization is far too powerful/necessary.

Natural resources - metal especially - run out very very quickly. Perversely, multiplayer is a soil demetalization arms race. Every player is forced to account for the time when all the metal is exhausted and demetalization becomes the source of metal income. You're forced to pay a big tax now to not run out later. Even though demetalization is so incredibly expensive, the quick exhaustion of metal deposits makes it just too important to pass up. In multiplayer, a very good indicator of who is ahead, is who has the biggest soil demetalization facility.

IMO, Shadow Empire would be better if there was more reason to care about important assets outside the cities - it would give players tangible things to fight over ("I want that metal!" "I'm not letting you have it!").

This also goes for things like oil and rare metal deposits, but metal deposits are where it's the worst, since the player is always going to be very very hungry for metal.

My suggestion would be:

• Massively increase the amount of natural resources in the deposits. Possibly make them on par with the ice mines, where the amount is finite but so large you could go most of a game without running out. Possibly make them completely inexhaustible.
  Make high-level/high-yield deposits rarer, to compensate.
  Make soil demetalization a higher tier technology than it is currently.

A semi-alternative that I have seen proposed, is making soil demetalization facilities only buildable on depleted mines. Makes mines inexhaustible, provides the strategic location to fight over, and limits the building's effectiveness.

Also, on the subject of having valuable assets outside the cities to fight over, it would be nice if Galactic Republic assets remained relevant through the game (automated factories etc). Perhaps giving us the option to refurbish them when an appropiate technology is researched.

The problem is that a lot of the easy deposits have been mind out during planet generation.

Those lines where it says "attracted miners"? Those are not idle lines.
Those single ruins you find in the middle of nowhere? Those were mining towns, whose resources (potentially) has run out.

There is the rare planet where you can see that very well, as each lone ruin overlaps with a deposit.

[Mechasaurian]

The problem is that a lot of the easy deposits have been mind out during planet generation.

Those lines where it says "attracted miners"? Those are not idle lines.
Those single ruins you find in the middle of nowhere? Those were mining towns, whose resources (potentially) has run out.

There is the rare planet where you can see that very well, as each lone ruin overlaps with a deposit.

Frankly, the in-universe realism/plausibility angle does not have a leg to stand on.

The Galactic Republic - a massive, interstellar industrialized civilization, uncountably larger than our own - was unable to exhaust the natural resources despite being on the planet for centuries. Yet the player nations, who are stone-age rock-throwing cavemen by comparison, are able to do so in a few short years???

Also, AFAIK there's never mention of running out of natural resources in the apocalypse/collapse/dissolution war backstories. Quite realistically, the problem is usually disruption of the trade networks and a breakdown of the supply chains as the Republlic flies apart as a political entitiy.

But fundamentally, the "is it realistic???" angle just doesn't matter all that much. Shadow Empire already makes quite a few breaks from reality for the sake of playability and being an interesting game. The most glaring might be the scale issue where brigades and battalions of a few thousand soldiers somehow hold a front line across hundreds or close to a thousand kilometres - something Vic acknowledges in the manual. But this is something I think most of us have learned to just roll with.

The issue that I'm tackling is one of game design, not realism - where, to stay competitive, players have to pour vast resources into soil demetalization to stay ahead and not run out of metal and die in the late game. You're paying a tax to not run out. It just kind of sucks, gameplay wise.