Why would someone want the mixed units

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: DasTactic
In battles you do have a front-rank and a support rank.

Oh? Just from watching the UI, the unit counters appear to have their subordinates on a line squares, but hits and losses appear to take place throughout that line of squares.

ORIGINAL: DasTactic
For example, I think you don't get to destroy trucks or artillery unless you make a break-through with your front-line and it takes a couple of combat rounds for front-line troops to close the gap.

Where do you see that?

Phases of the engagements don't appear to be highlighted. Is there a preparatory phase in an attack?

There are clearly turns for each engagement based on a unit's available action points.

[Saros]

DasTactic is right there are front/back lines of troops same as ATG and the DC games. The combat engine is functionally the same in most respects.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: Saros

DasTactic is right there are front/back lines of troops same as ATG and the DC games. The combat engine is functionally the same in most respects.

If I've not played those games, am I missing something in this game's presentation that demonstrates that loop?

[DasTactic]

There is a detailed combat screen behind the summary screen that tells the story of each sub-unit, what it does round by round, what the odds are etc. It tells you the cost for advancing in the first two rounds and by round three the attacker is on the same odds as the defender as far as the engagement factor is concerned.

[KingHalford]

Das have you done a video explaining that Detail screen in combat? If so I'd really like to see it.

I think that's one screen that needs a little UI work. I quite like white text on a black screen as it's easy on my eyes but I know a whole lot of people who hate it and the text is very small even on a 1920x1080 resolution.

[KingHalford]

Oh, and one final consideration with mixed units.

Taking the Heavy Siege Infantry Corps as an example again, once I'm through this trench war in that heavy woods chokepoint, if I feel that the troops and equipment might be better used elsewhere in a different formation, I can disband it. That takes a few turns depending on how close to your SHQ you are (all those troops and equipment will require trucks to move them back home) but they'll not only keep their experience levels but once they're back they can be immediately reformed into different formations as required.

This has the added advantage that you can then select the very best, most experienced troops and form them into elite units, something that becomes more useful and viable the further you are into the game. After you've fought a couple or three Major Regimes for several decades, you're going to have a big pool of elite units (providing you've kept them alive), and their combat bonuses should not be sniffed at. They can form a very effective spearhead to break a deadlock. This last point is a general one of course, and certainly not tied to using mixed formations!

[balto]

Explorminate, not sure I get what you are saying and I do not know what a Heavy Siege Corp is, but wouldn't it be easier to just use Strategic Redeploy or Move your Infantry into the woods and the Heavy Siege stuff (assuming it has lots of equipment.., mechanized, maybe) to the area where you want it?

But still back to the original question, I think Das is supporting me in this - in that, does a mixed unit fight with all units when DIRECT is used. Because presently, many are using the INDIRECT command with their mixed units because they believe the arty does not behave like arty if you click the DIRECT button, simply because there is a button for INDIRECT.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: balto

But still back to the original question, I think Das is supporting me in this - in that, does a mixed unit fight with all units when DIRECT is used. Because presently, many are using the INDIRECT command with their mixed units because they believe the arty does not behave like arty if you click the DIRECT button, simply because there is a button for INDIRECT.

I think that's a fair question.

I was initially confused as to why units that are attacking with direct fire aren't occupying the target hex if they win. It's as if they seize the location and then go back to their starting positions.

I simply attributed the oddity to a design choice. As you can't specify assaulting units and support by fire units in the attack model, I assumed it was a simplification.

Finally, and even more tangential to the OP, I do think the "Eligible Unit's" selection (in the attack screen) is hiding some important considerations from players. Players seem to focus on it for decisions without proper analysis... resulting in confusing odds changes. I would add that as a separate thread here, but think my posts might be working against the closed beta forum.

[KingHalford]

ORIGINAL: balto

Explorminate, not sure I get what you are saying and I do not know what a Heavy Siege Corp is, but wouldn't it be easier to just use Strategic Redeploy or Move your Infantry into the woods and the Heavy Siege stuff (assuming it has lots of equipment.., mechanized, maybe) to the area where you want it?

But still back to the original question, I think Das is supporting me in this - in that, does a mixed unit fight with all units when DIRECT is used. Because presently, many are using the INDIRECT command with their mixed units because they believe the arty does not behave like arty if you click the DIRECT button, simply because there is a button for INDIRECT.

Please, call me Ben or BATTLEMODE, eXplorminate's the site I do some work for

Ok so I posted some info above on what constitutes a Heavy Siege Corp, including specific numbers of men and artillery equipment. It's not motorised (that'd be useless in Heavy Woods anyway as that terrain has a big penalty to wheeled units). Each counter contains some infantry, and some guns. That formation can attack either direct or indirectly at range (but only to adjacent hexes as it has a range of 1, same as a standard non-ranged unit).

The short answer to your question is yes. When you attack directly with a combat unit that contains artillery they will also take part in the battle, fire and do damage along with whatever other troops or equipment are partaking in the battle. You don't have to click "indirect" because that is a different attack type, and activating that stops enemies without artillery engaging you, at the expense of stopping your own non-ranged units attacking.

Does this answer your question?

[KingHalford]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

Finally, and even more tangential to the OP, I do think the "Eligible Unit's" selection (in the attack screen) is hiding some important considerations from players. Players seem to focus on it for decisions without proper analysis... resulting in confusing odds changes. I would add that as a separate thread here, but think my posts might be working against the closed beta forum.

The odds system is not to be trusted directly: it's a simplification based on your recon on the hex you're attacking. I've attacked with 100:1 or more and still lost the combat. Other times, you can attack 1:1 and get an overwhelming victory.

This doesn't mean it's useless, because it's not, but you do indeed have to examine the other information that's present there: supply, readiness, Posture Strategems... I don't think it will count any special models (Warrior Priests, Cult Leaders and so on) that are attached to a unit unless you can see them (and some of those are incredibly powerful and can drastically change the chances of victory)

My own issue with the way the odds are calculated are that they don't seem to be very consistent. You can add your attacking counters to the battle, get one set of odds, then remove them all and add them again and get different odds. I'm not sure what causes this, and it's possible it's been patched in recent patches because I don't have access to the patch notes to see what changes are being made.

[KingHalford]

As an example of the above, in Das and Tortuga's current MP game, there's an occasion where Tortuga has a marauder unit surrounded with several regular units with 10 strength each. Now, he's being understandably cautious of the odds (losing a battle there might lose him the game) so he's looking at odds like 7:1 and saying "no, I'll wait". Now, there is the Hard difficulty modifier to consider but I think the odds calculation is counting that. So here you need to know the rules of what units work well in each situation: irregular units are about 50% less effective than regulars according to the manual, which means that Tortuga's units would very likely walk all over those marauders unless they were both very well dug in and had a high readiness. I forget now if that was the case but I remember thinking "I'd have taken those odds there".

[Malevolence]

The game appears to have stacking and hex-side combat width penalties if too many units are used in an attack. This includes a penalty for poor shooter-target ratios.

Given that the detection rules and ui don't really provide a useful confidence interval, it becomes a more difficult decision. This is made all more painful to watch because one streamer/influencer epitomizes the strengths and the weaknesses of a George Meade.

Instead of simply providing a simple detection value, it would be better to give the player a confidence interval (based on detection) of the important strength values (the enemy's combat power).

EDIT: This isn't a knock on the developer. Clearly the game tries where it can. The UI practically screams at the player with flashing red lights when a leader is killed in action. However, players seem to miss the cues completely.

[balto]

Hey Ben, thank you for that clarification. I am positive there are many of us that did not know this based on YouTube observations.

Malevolence.., the reference to George Meade - awesome!

[KingHalford]

ORIGINAL: balto

Hey Ben, thank you for that clarification. I am positive there are many of us that did not know this based on YouTube observations.

Anytime sir!

[GodwinW]

Well as attacker you always have a penalty in that you need to close the gap (basically run over there while the dug in defenders can shoot at the approaching enemies). In Details you see this mentioned as a severe attack penalty the first 2 rounds for Infantry for example, as well as 'Breakthrough' which signifies the attackers are actually in a position to deal serious damage.

And then there's just the chance of 7:1 being 12,5% chance of losing. That's kind of close to a roll of a 6-sided die and rolling a 1, if you find that more clear. Would you risk a roll like that or wait and probably they retreat or attack themselves to death?

People are different. It's no problem if you always take the odds if they're 5:1 or more in favor. Everyone has their own style. I personally don't think Vic needs to change anything, it's clear enough.

[WeaverofBrokenThreads]

Artillery is used in direct attack, but I think they are always stuck on indirect fire mode, because their firepower remains the same. In the design window, indirect fire is its own mod% to soft attack, for example.

Back to the original question: Having mixed units is beneficial - especially artillery - because units will defend other units. Artillery never gets attacked unless the enemy gets a breakthrough result. For this reason, having independent artillery is not optimal; if they're directly engaged, it is likely that they are all dead.

On the topic of artillery: They get a lot of attacks per turn, and although they do not do a lot of damage without optimization techs, they can land some retreat or pinned hits which benefit you greatly.

[Jdane]

ORIGINAL: WeaverofBrokenThreads

For this reason, having independent artillery is not optimal; if they're directly engaged, it is likely that they are all dead.

That's an excellent remark and food for thought.

[springel]

ORIGINAL: Jdane

ORIGINAL: WeaverofBrokenThreads

For this reason, having independent artillery is not optimal; if they're directly engaged, it is likely that they are all dead.

That's an excellent remark and food for thought.

But are the different rear area classes of units not shielded by front units of all the participating units? I didn't think there is a difference between 6 artillery plus 6 infantry whether they are from the same or from different units in a battle. I used my little militia artillery unit with very few shielding infantry for all my big attacks, and I never lost a gun. The artillery delivers quite a punch in the attack at the low level tech of the start.

[Jdane]

Good question.

In a militia regiment, there's already a mix of artillery and infantry that can screen it, so it does not shed very much light on the question. (And they can be broken through, I've just seen farmer militia riflemen reach the rear line and destroy 10 canons from my militia regiment.)

But in my current game, I found a Galactic Republic mobile shield that negated hits scored by the enemy against sub-units that belonged to other units entirely - the mobile shield is its own unit. But it might another system than the front / rear one. I'm assuming WeaverofBrokenThreads is speaking from experience and willing to take his word on this, but if I have the opportunity I'll try and look into it myself.

[Malevolence]

Having artillery is preferable to not having artillery.

Per section 5.12.3.7. (Operational Stats) of the manual, "Foot is mostly defensive, Soldiers on foot without ranged attack have their Soft and Hard Attack values divided by two."

Although the next paragraph is clumsily worded, it appears MG Units also get Hard Defense values cut in half as well.

I assume when the manual refers to ranged attack, it means models with RPG's (maybe?), guns (maybe?), howitzers, rockets, or missiles. The manual and game should use the words indirect fire or direct fire if that is what it means.

In any event, the issue is whether you can maneuver (i.e. move and shoot) your indirect fire artillery independently of direct fire forces. All other things being equal, with artillery locked inside a direct fire unit counter, you are sacrificing the flexibility to mass and the potential for economy of force.

For those reasons, I avoid units with artillery mixed inside a unit counter's TO&E.

If the OOB research offers artillery units I can maneuver, I am perfectly happy with that task organization instead (more so for the OHQ bonus). I tend to add non-recce units to OHQ's anyway.