Making trucks great (again?)

[zgrssd]

Currently, the precise design of a truck barely matters:
- You just put in the weakest engine to save fuel and that is "it".
- Conversely, the weight of equipment - particular Artiller and AT guns - does not mater. All trucks can drag them equally.
- The amount of crew truck untis need seems pretty excessive. Right now they double the amount of Soldiers per unit.
- the amount of truck units that appear in combat are also somewhat excessive

The most important part would be to make the carry capacity mater, while ideally setting it in relation to the gears weight. That would allow the engine design mater as well. Stronger trucks might even be able to save fuel, IP and metal by needing less units.

Option 1 - Fixed Target Carry Capacity
We can roughly figure out that a truck should be able to "carry Y weight". How much they are below or above would not affect the movement speed, but the fuel consumption. A very underpowered truck might end up using way more fuel then a better powered one. However, this would be a noticeable exception compared to every other unit type.
It might be easier to just make "Carry Capacity" a seperat stat to be used for other ideas below.

Option 2 - Less Trucks/Soldier
Currently we need 1 "unit" of trucks, to carry 1 Unit of anything else. It does not mater if taht unit are 100 infanterists or 10 5-ton-guns.
What if we could make the Trucks work with a 5:1 Ratio? 5 subunits can be carried by one truck subunit. This actually makes them work more like unit feats, then conventional units. Wich is not bad, as a "non-combat Unit Feat" is kinda what they are there for.
And the 5:1 Ratio would still cover Size 5 units (wich are pretty common), while being able to adapt to bigger unit sizes easily.

Option 3 - Fixed Taget Movement Modifer
Unlike other units where the weight/engine power defines the Movement modifier, with Motorized we know how fast we want them to be. The goal should be to reach that on as few trucks as possible.
This is a simple math of comparing carry capacity vs "weight of the stuff you want it to carry". If your equipment weighs 200 Units, and you want to reach +20% speed (270% Engine Power/Weight; 540 Carry Capacity), you can resolve the Formula at 5.12.3.7 towards Carry capacity. And then the trucks needed. Each truck subunit has to carry it's own share of the total weight. So how many trucks each subunit has, would depend entirely on how good those trucks are. Each subunit could still use different trucks, but at least within the subunits stuff would be homogenous.
Again, that way a good truck with a strong engine might save fuel and IP, simply by needing fewer units.

[ydmatrix2]

Agree.
It seems there's currently no downside to designing very heavy arty since you motorize them and truck are all-powerful.

[MatthewVilter]

Agreed!

The massive manpower cost of motorizing infantry is particularly troublesome.

[Nachtjager]

Speaking specifically on the manpower point, I was annoyed by that at first but I'm coming around on it. For something that seems like an expedient solution to avoid manpower being too granular it seems like a reasonable abstraction of the mechanics/supply side of things for a unit which now uses organic logistics to pick up fuel on top of everything else.

[Fizbun]

It does seem a bit excessive that you need like 10 dudes for 1 truck, just to operate it. Probably two or three is fine to give it a regular maintenance. Perhaps some sort of mechanic platoons or other units could be attached that would repair trucks and armour on the field. Thinking of which, it'd also be cool to actually be able to create custom models but for that another topic should be made.

But yes, motorized units take like 2x the manpower than non-motorized units and that doesn't really make sense when all they're driving are some simple trucks for transport. Which depending on the truck could take up to 20, 30 or like 50 soldiers, it depends on how you pack them and their equipment inside. In my conscript days, our maximum was 33 men in one smaller type truck. So perhaps designing trucks should take into consideration as to how large the truck is and that would affect the cost and such.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Fizbun

Which depending on the truck could take up to 20, 30 or like 50 soldiers, it depends on how you pack them and their equipment inside. In my conscript days, our maximum was 33 men in one smaller type truck. So perhaps designing trucks should take into consideration as to how large the truck is and that would affect the cost and such.

The "weight" of 100 humans is considered to be 5. Mostly because of the difficulty of packing humans.

[MatthewVilter]

The technical limit seems to be that the unit size for humans is 100. It just seems like the simple thing to do would be to give truck subunits more carrying capacity.

[Atros]

ORIGINAL: Fizbun

It does seem a bit excessive that you need like 10 dudes for 1 truck, just to operate it. Probably two or three is fine to give it a regular maintenance. Perhaps some sort of mechanic platoons or other units could be attached that would repair trucks and armour on the field. Thinking of which, it'd also be cool to actually be able to create custom models but for that another topic should be made.

But yes, motorized units take like 2x the manpower than non-motorized units and that doesn't really make sense when all they're driving are some simple trucks for transport. Which depending on the truck could take up to 20, 30 or like 50 soldiers, it depends on how you pack them and their equipment inside. In my conscript days, our maximum was 33 men in one smaller type truck. So perhaps designing trucks should take into consideration as to how large the truck is and that would affect the cost and such.

When I was doing my service as signals engineer driver, in my country the logistical department had the drivers who were not on driving duty do all the regular maintenance for the trucks. Naturally there was also external leasing service for all the major repairs, rehauls or heavy maintenance cycles, but all the common maintenance like changing oils, fixing minor electronics or repairing tyres was done by the drivers and there was just one driver per car (actually because of peace time, there were more trucks than drivers, but one per car was the target).

Also common trucks were designed to haul 30 troops plus three officers and personal combat/survival equipment besides the driver and they were the heaviest sort common all terrain 6x6 trucks that could haul up to 30 tons of cargo (without the troops) and also same amount in drawn wagon. There were actually some 8x8 and 10x10 trucks for artillery that could have fitted maybe 8 men more and my licence allowed me to haul up to 50 men by semi-trailer, but that was mostly theoretical as the army to my knowledge hadn't such equipment other than for training purposes as they couldn't go offroad anyways, which was the main operating area. Intercity traffic would be operated by rails or busses anyways, so army didn't really need that capability in the first place.

By that example and considering the mobilized troops would mostly work in non-road wasteland, battalion would be around four companies, which would equal about 500 men (or 1k in the case of this game's double-sized batallions), so they would need around 17 trucks and drivers plus couple more for the immediate equipment that comes along and thus there should be about 20-40 drivers for battalion of infantry and thus I agree the mobilizing shouldn't eat that much manpower, but cause extra need for fuel and cost heavy amounts of IC and perhaps metals in the creation.

So as we know one unit of manpower equals hundred men, the ways to go would either take the manpower need away completely, replacing it with need for metal and consider the trucks simply as equipment driven by the fighting unit or that single creation of trucks would provide 5 sub-units of trucks that can each carry 500 men or similar amount of arty.

One more thing I would like see changed besides the mentioned ones is that as the trucks get Field Testing xp same ways as the other units, you must actually get them either killed or atleast shot on to get them to gain points in the Basic Design Score. Thus I would very much see at the very least trucks if not all units to get one point increase to Field Testing xp simply by taking part in combat. Rarely do you need to let trucks be destroyed to see their weak points or where is room for improvement.

[mek42]

I'd love to be able to add an optional MG to trucks that is only used on the defense. Maybe also add the option for the 5 mm light armor. I think the trucks should only be on the battefield when defending or when attacking with, say 25% max AP or less.

As a player, I need to learn strategic logistics better, as strategic map move is the only use I have for motorized OOB currently.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: mek42

I'd love to be able to add an optional MG to trucks that is only used on the defense. Maybe also add the option for the 5 mm light armor. I think the trucks should only be on the battefield when defending or when attacking with, say 25% max AP or less.

As a player, I need to learn strategic logistics better, as strategic map move is the only use I have for motorized OOB currently.

[&:]

Strategic Move uses leftover Logistics Points. The same ones used for Raising formations away from the SHQ.
Motorized OOB's have a massively increased Food consumption and Logistics weight, so they are worse for redeployment and general logistics.

[LordAldrich]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

ORIGINAL: mek42

I'd love to be able to add an optional MG to trucks that is only used on the defense. Maybe also add the option for the 5 mm light armor. I think the trucks should only be on the battefield when defending or when attacking with, say 25% max AP or less.

As a player, I need to learn strategic logistics better, as strategic map move is the only use I have for motorized OOB currently.

[&:]

Strategic Move uses leftover Logistics Points. The same ones used for Raising formations away from the SHQ.
Motorized OOB's have a massively increased Food consumption and Logistics weight, so they are worse for redeployment and general logistics.

+1

When you use strategic move you're loading your military trucks onto (abstract) logistics trucks or trains. You can do the same with foot infantry. Granted, I use strategic move for my units with engines anytime I can - it saves the fuel consumption, just like it does IRL.

[zgrssd]

Revive!

So now we got Airbridges. That gives me some ideas:
- You would select how much carrying capacity a truck has, the same way you define the cargospace on a plane
- You would have to match the engine to that weight to get any decent speed, but at the cost of needing more fuel
- one big question was how much each subformation "weighs". The average 100 Soliers "weigh" 5 Logistics units. There is a comparable logistics price for artillery, guns and everything else that may need to be dragged.
- You would select the cargo size of the truck, same way you would select to use light/medium/heavy tanks
- each "unit" of trucks would use the same manpower. The Advantage of bigger trucks would be needing a whole lot less trucks overall, wich also means less manpower tied up in the driver pool

Example:
Truck cargo comes in the sizes 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, etc.
1000 Soldiers with no particular gear would have a weight of 50 "Logistics Units".
Depemnding on wich "Cargo Size" I select of this units trucks:
If I select Cargo Size 5, I need 10 units of trucks. Wich would required 1000 drivers. Wich happens to be the current state.
If I select Cargo Size 10, I need 5 units of trucks. Wich would require only 500 drivers but be more expnesive to build and might need more fuel for the same speed
If I select Cargo Size 20, I would need 3 units of trucks (technically only 2.5, but let us just round up). Wich would mean only 300 men used for driving
If I select Cargo Size 40, I would need 2 units of trucks (again, rounding up for simplicity)
If I select Cargo Size 80, I would need 1 unit of trucks with only 100 drivers. And would still have around 30 capacity to use for later

For bonus points, why not also fold the IFV into this?
Per my understanding, the IFV is a step between a truck and a APC: It is slightly more armed and armored then a truck, but not so much it should try to be in combat. Instead of a Carog Size 10, you design a Cargo Size 10 with buggy armor and gun. But at least it can defend itself against breaktroughs and air attacks. It might even get the buggies ability to scout (or at least a lesser version of it).
The donwside of adding even token gun and armor would be more weight, wich means slower units or more fuel consumption due to a bigger engine

[newageofpower]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Per my understanding, the IFV is a step between a truck and a APC

Actually, IFV is between MBT/APC.

IRL IFVs have more protection, less troop capacity, but also a more serious weapons suite (typically autocannon + ATGMs) when compared to an APC (usually just MG).

The Bradley IFV is at 26.7 tons, whereas the M113 comes in at ~12.3 tons and the BTR-70 at 11.5 tons.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: newageofpower

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Per my understanding, the IFV is a step between a truck and a APC

Actually, IFV is between MBT/APC.

IRL IFVs have more protection, less troop capacity, but also a more serious weapons suite (typically autocannon + ATGMs) when compared to an APC (usually just MG).

The Bradley IFV is at 26.7 tons, whereas the M113 comes in at ~12.3 tons and the BTR-70 at 11.5 tons.

Maybe it was the other way around.

In any case, Truck, IFV and APC are points on the same sliding scale. So it would make sense from the to be treated like one concept, different models.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Revive!

So now we got Airbridges. That gives me some ideas:
- You would select how much carrying capacity a truck has, the same way you define the cargospace on a plane
- You would have to match the engine to that weight to get any decent speed, but at the cost of needing more fuel
- one big question was how much each subformation "weighs". The average 100 Soliers "weigh" 5 Logistics units. There is a comparable logistics price for artillery, guns and everything else that may need to be dragged.
- You would select the cargo size of the truck, same way you would select to use light/medium/heavy tanks
- each "unit" of trucks would use the same manpower. The Advantage of bigger trucks would be needing a whole lot less trucks overall, wich also means less manpower tied up in the driver pool

Example:
Truck cargo comes in the sizes 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, etc.
1000 Soldiers with no particular gear would have a weight of 50 "Logistics Units".
Depemnding on wich "Cargo Size" I select of this units trucks:
If I select Cargo Size 5, I need 10 units of trucks. Wich would required 1000 drivers. Wich happens to be the current state.
If I select Cargo Size 10, I need 5 units of trucks. Wich would require only 500 drivers but be more expnesive to build and might need more fuel for the same speed
If I select Cargo Size 20, I would need 3 units of trucks (technically only 2.5, but let us just round up). Wich would mean only 300 men used for driving
If I select Cargo Size 40, I would need 2 units of trucks (again, rounding up for simplicity)
If I select Cargo Size 80, I would need 1 unit of trucks with only 100 drivers. And would still have around 30 capacity to use for later

For bonus points, why not also fold the IFV into this?
Per my understanding, the IFV is a step between a truck and a APC: It is slightly more armed and armored then a truck, but not so much it should try to be in combat. Instead of a Carog Size 10, you design a Cargo Size 10 with buggy armor and gun. But at least it can defend itself against breaktroughs and air attacks. It might even get the buggies ability to scout (or at least a lesser version of it).
The donwside of adding even token gun and armor would be more weight, wich means slower units or more fuel consumption due to a bigger engine

I think I really need to clean up this idea a bit:

When designing a Truck/APC/IFV you get to choose:
- The cargo capacity. Steps like 5/7/11/13 Logistics weight/truck unit. This will be the main weight factor/what decides how good it is at transporting troops - and thus how many you will need
- the Armor. This can be from none, up to buggy level. Maybe even 1 step above buggy level
- the Weapon. I was think MG and Light Howitzers (to simulate various autoguns)
- the Engine. What has to move around all the Cargo Capacity and Armor weight
- if it should be a wheled or tracked vehicle

A actuall truck would leave the Armor and Weapon empty
A APC would add a token MG and token armor, at the cost of some capacity or speed
A IFV would add a Howitzer/Autocannon and more armor, at the cost of relevant capacity or speed


The Motized/Mechanized infantry formation in the field would:
1. calculate it's weight. 100 soldiers/Recruits/Colonists "weigh" 5 Logistics Capacity. So a 1000 man combat unit weights 50.
2. try to get the biggest transport vehicles availible
3. get just enough cargo capacity to cover the 50 in full
4. if you can not get the vehicle (not enough in storage, size limits of the logistics connection), select the next smaler cargo capacity and try to add them until you the sum adds up to mpore then the value from 1.

The result would be that models with more cargo capacity would be prefered automatically. Wich also means less manpower bound in the drivers pool. It might even save logistics, as fewer trucks might use less fuel.

[Vic]

The manpower thingy for Trucks is on my to-do list. Its a bit complicated, but I finally got a good idea to reduce the final manpower cost here. Next finetuning open beta.

[Malevolence]

The manpower thingy for Trucks is on my to-do list. Its a bit complicated, but I finally got a good idea to reduce the final manpower cost here. Next finetuning open beta.

Necro

It's almost 13 months later, was there any movement on this topic?

As of late March 2022, trucks seems to perform the same.

I agree with comments about the necessity for support and maintenance crews, however, given the current model then a truck would have a "Carry" value of 1, not 5 as the game now indicates in the Truck model display.

zgrssd notes here that a Carry value of 5 is 100 personnel in the game.

As the numbers seem to indicate in the OOB lists, 100 trucks are required for 1,000 troopers (i.e., dismounts), with an added 1,000 crew. That is 100 trucks moving 2,000 personnel total, or 20 pax each per truck. That indicates the Carry value of each Truck is actually 1 and not 5 as the game states (if zgrssd is correct).

Given the milieu of the game, I'd be satisfied if each truck maintained a crew of 2 each (e.g., a driver and vehicle commander/MG gunner). I suspect in this post apocalyptic environment that all the soldiers of the unit would be conducting additional duties like maintenance, armorer, load bearer, etc. when not in combat.

[S1man]

It's almost 13 months later, was there any movement on this topic?

As of late March 2022, trucks seems to perform the same.

Manpower issue was largely fixed in 1.09
"-Manpower Rebate rule. Trucks / APCs and Recon Buggies return some manpower back to SHQ after their deployment from the factory (returning mechanics, logistics and factory teams). Defacto thus Trucks use only 20% of stated manpower, APCs and Recon Buggies 33%. (this rule also results in less manpower returned on disband and food consumption) (Militia does not profit from this rule as they are rather inefficient)"

[Dogetor]

Little suggestion: Maybe motorised infantry should have small morale bonus? Real soldiers would be grateful to have motorised transport instead of matching on foot. Moreover having trucks in unit makes it feel a bit more elite than regular infantry.