Matrix Games Forums

Huzzah!

Once again I have been unanimously elected Dark Lord of the Republic of Mordor! A-testing we shall go on v1.21q!!!

Just a bug fix

I have been unable to extend rare metal mines in q2. They don't show up on the candidates list. Worked fine in question. Odd.

Hi Solops,
Could you send a save file? to vic@vrdesigns.net
You sure there is already a mine active + ease of mining level is >1 ?

Fixed some bugs and did some items from my "small" to-do list.

Vic wrote: Tue Sep 26, 2023 3:39 pm Hi Solops,
Could you send a save file? to vic@vrdesigns.net
You sure there is already a mine active + ease of mining level is >1 ?

There is an active mine. The ease of mining is 1. From your question above I take it that is an issue? I did not see much explanation about the conditions for the expansion. Sorry if I alerted over nothing. I see now that a a level 0 mine is not a thing...Right?

Nope when ease of mining level is at 1 it is at the lowest possible and you are out of options to find more deposits.

Vic wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 2:56 pm And I am still judging the balance of earlier changes as well and I can say I am not super happy of the side effect that tank vs infantry is more skewed to tanks on early tech High Hazard Level worlds. On the other hand did you notice the cost of producing those tanks on high hazard level worlds is also a lot higher?

Yeah everything is way more expensive. However the way i see it, it just gives me a long term advantage because i focus on building metal > industry > electricity generation > fuel > more industry = big enough output to out match AI with mechanized units. They stand no chance. And with the lethality of artillery/tanks on infantry all that this means is that AI just loses even harder. 3 turns of contact with mechanized units (not just tanks) and you basically wipe out their entire infantry base. Which puts them with worse economy and fewer mechanized units = guaranteed loss unless terrain is SUPER favorable (mountains etc).

I really think you need to kinda rethink the whole balance. In these particular conditions tanks and artillery are simply too powerful and infantry (or any kind) simply inferior/not even worth putting on the battlefield.

Ohhh i just saw the changelog for 1.21s maybe that explains my (very bad) experience with high hazard combat. Mkay. Ill give the latest patch a run or a dozen. Ignore my above post, looks like you already fixed my concerns.

Uemon wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2023 10:30 pm I really think you need to kinda rethink the whole balance. In these particular conditions tanks and artillery are simply too powerful and infantry (or any kind) simply inferior/not even worth putting on the battlefield.

I cannot offer any informed opinion about armor vs infantry on hostile worlds. However, everywhere else, armor and artillery should absolutely wipe the floor with plain infantry. If I recall correctly, in a post WWII survey, the US Army estimated that 70-80% of all combat casualties were inflicted by artillery. And all relevant accounts of armor vs infantry I have seen indicate that infantry without anti-armor weapons is just grease for tank treads. One of the FIRST things I deploy when enemy armor appears is RPGs in all of my infantry units via custom OOBs, especially when I cannot afford my own armor. My infantry then holds up OK. The forum on Steams's site for Graviteam Tactic's "Mius Front" has a very informative and annotated discussion in a stickied thread called "Infantry vs tanks and SPGs (useless?)". I highly recommend it.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/312980/d ... 826024789/

In the game, infantry without AT weapons have never been more than a speedbump against tanks, and tanks (without any supporting infantry) have always been able to easily break anything but massed, high-quality AT weapons. The thing that changed with the enviromental hazard kill chance mechanic was that in severe conditions, instead of mostly living to be a speedbump another day, the infantry would just drop dead. The accompanying ammo rebalance probably did make relying on hordes of tanks a lot more impractical than before otherwise, though.

Artillery, on the other hand, has generally been seen as weak because it's bad against tanks and used to be outscaled by infantry armor in the late game. Its scaling did get improved by the recent addition of techs that boost the performance of conventional guns.

Bump! Subversion U posted. Fixes on the recent changes, notably Battle Reports, but also some AI improvements.

Soar_Slitherine wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 10:10 am In the game, infantry without AT weapons have never been more than a speedbump against tanks, and tanks (without any supporting infantry) have always been able to easily break anything but massed, high-quality AT weapons. The thing that changed with the enviromental hazard kill chance mechanic was that in severe conditions, instead of mostly living to be a speedbump another day, the infantry would just drop dead. The accompanying ammo rebalance probably did make relying on hordes of tanks a lot more impractical than before otherwise, though.

Artillery, on the other hand, has generally been seen as weak because it's bad against tanks and used to be outscaled by infantry armor in the late game. Its scaling did get improved by the recent addition of techs that boost the performance of conventional guns.

Yup. Infantry used to be mostly pushed aside by armor, with some casualties, but then it got to the point where 90% of untis would die from a single attack.

And i agree in general that artillery right now is pretty much useless. Its way too slow and doesnt really provide anything noticeable. I dont see a single reason to make it. I basically go MG or infantry first, to fill up the "frontline", then i start adding some motorized infantry to pull easy encirclements, then i go into mechanized (APC + infantry) and then last tanks when i have enough fuel/industrial capacity.

Artillery and AT really suffers from slow speed as of late. I only find myself making some AT in very extreme cases.

Things are very similar with RPG infantry. I cant really see their purpose. They just feel like a inbetween of infantry (cheap) and AT (cheaper) but perform way worse than both.

I would also argue that perhaps mechanized infantry (APCs) is EXTREMELY overpowered for what you get. The main purpose of these things in real life is to follow armored formations and deliver infantry around the battlefield with some additional protection. The game basically treats them as superb breakthrough weapons. I would even say that APCs kinda perform better than tanks. If it were up to me, i would rebalance this completely. Reduce their firepower (since this isnt really their primary purpose) and instead make them provide their attached infantry (actual combat element of the formation) staying power.

Uemon wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2023 10:36 pm Ohhh i just saw the changelog for 1.21s maybe that explains my (very bad) experience with high hazard combat. Mkay. Ill give the latest patch a run or a dozen. Ignore my above post, looks like you already fixed my concerns.

Extreme casualties from high hazard is definitely fixed as of 1.21t. Warfare feels "normal" again.

Now off to play some latest patch.

The what do you call it, odds calculator guesstimate mechanic part of the interface is not working properly when calculating odds against enemy units that are cut off from their supply lines and out of supplies.

Basically i have cut off an entire AI frontline from their logiscits. They are currently sitting at -69% supplies. Every time i attack one of those units, no matter what with, or no matter which unit, i get 1 : 367 (or something similar) attack odds. Despite the fact that im either wiping them out or pushing them away with 0 losses every single time.

Uemon wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:56 pm I would even say that APCs kinda perform better than tanks.

They have way less offensive punch than tanks, and are vulnerable to tanks and the things that everybody has to bring to kill tanks. They're not drastically cheaper than light tanks either. A model with good offensive values that doesn't share the huge ammo consumption of tanks and doesn't inflict collateral damage when assaulting cities certainly looks useful, but I don't think they're over the top in a metagame dominated by tanks and tank-killing.

Accompanying infantry does seem rather superfluous for the offensive performance of APCs, though - like tanks, they don't need the support unless attacking into concentrated anti-tank weapons. (On the defense, the infantry are much more relevant.)

Soar_Slitherine wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 9:34 pm

Uemon wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:56 pm I would even say that APCs kinda perform better than tanks.

They have way less offensive punch than tanks, and are vulnerable to tanks and the things that everybody has to bring to kill tanks. They're not drastically cheaper than light tanks either. A model with good offensive values that doesn't share the huge ammo consumption of tanks and doesn't inflict collateral damage when assaulting cities certainly looks useful, but I don't think they're over the top in a metagame dominated by tanks and tank-killing.

Accompanying infantry does seem rather superfluous for the offensive performance of APCs, though - like tanks, they don't need the support unless attacking into concentrated anti-tank weapons. (On the defense, the infantry are much more relevant.)

I just fought an AI for the first time ever with a full frontline (about 10-15 hexes) of heavy tanks, and for the first time ever, my APC enricle rush didnt work because they would just melt against the heavy tank wall. So i suppose you do have a point.

However i will still claim that compared to non mechanized and motorized infantry, they are insane. A single independent stack of APC + infantry can punch through infantry almost as easily as tanks can. At least light tanks.

Uemon wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:56 pm Things are very similar with RPG infantry. I cant really see their purpose. They just feel like a inbetween of infantry (cheap) and AT (cheaper) but perform way worse than both.

I would say RPGs are pretty in the right spot now.
They are ~5-6 times cheaper than AT guns of the highest caliber, and have maybe ~4-5 times worse hard defense than AT guns of a similar tech (pre-laser). But both have their pros and cons: 1) RPGs require more recruits to achieve similar effectiveness; 2) AT guns have significantly better HP stat, giving a lot of extra survivability; 3) However, AT guns have extremely poor mobility without trucks, which is extra cost; 4) RPGs roll against a lower HP of tanks, and this is often important as the difference can be 2-3 times for some models, giving an additional edge in these caes; 5) RPG infantry is affected by various attack/defence postures but AT guns are not. 6) RPGs might suffer caliber penalties if against heavy and Xheavy tanks.

I think RPGs are great as early en-mass anti-tank defence, especially when there a is lack of IP/metal. But ATGs are great for additional defence of key positions and later in the game when resources are plentiful.

tikhun wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2023 1:06 am

Uemon wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:56 pm Things are very similar with RPG infantry. I cant really see their purpose. They just feel like a inbetween of infantry (cheap) and AT (cheaper) but perform way worse than both.

I would say RPGs are pretty in the right spot now.
They are ~5-6 times cheaper than AT guns of the highest caliber, and have maybe ~4-5 times worse hard defense than AT guns of a similar tech (pre-laser). But both have their pros and cons: 1) RPGs require more recruits to achieve similar effectiveness; 2) AT guns have significantly better HP stat, giving a lot of extra survivability; 3) However, AT guns have extremely poor mobility without trucks, which is extra cost; 4) RPGs roll against a lower HP of tanks, and this is often important as the difference can be up to 2 times for some models, giving an additional edge in these caes; 5) RPG infantry is affected by various attack/defence postures but AT guns are not.

I think RPGs are great as early en-mass anti-tank defence, especially when there a is lack of IP/metal. But ATGs are great for additional defence of key positions and later in the game when resources are plentiful.

Have you ever acually gotten RPGs to stop (kill) tanks? I have never. I have seen AT guns wreck tanks many times. I usually get around mobility issue by using APCs. Every time i tried to use RPGs they just get wiped by the dozens