Matrix Games Forums

Mechasaurian wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 1:45 pm What SE could use, IMO, is better simulation of combined arms.

The mixed infantry-tank formations that you can research through the Staff Council? Consensus is "don't use them, they're useless." When attacking with a tank-infantry formation, the infantry charges straight at the enemy along with the tank, and typically take significant casaulties unless there's such a massive overmatch in force capability that you can bully your enemy with basic infantry anyway.

The reason Tanks perform well against infantry, is mostly the Callibre calculation.
20mm Small Arms vs 200mm Armor? -90% penalty.
On hard attack values that are already bad.
Unless the infantry has some AT-Guns, RPG or Artillery? It will not score a hit on that tank.

But in combined Arms warfare, being able to survive means nothing if the enemy just shoots your allies instead.

Mechasaurian “What SE could use, IMO, is better simulation of combined arms.”

I agree with your comment in general, but somewhat disagree with what the issue is. In the interest of providing feedback for the development for the game, I would like to add to your topic.

I believe, as you suggest, that the Staff Research, and the OOB, structure needs some rework, and additional thought put into it. And as you hint, I find I’m having trouble immersing myself into this portion of the game, as it seems to be an underdeveloped portion of the game.

I believe the central issue is the design concept of the researching new techs, by first discovering said tech, then having to research it. This game design concept is then applied Staffing Council where you have to discover a formation, than research it. Given as you unlock new unit types, there are every expanding formation types to discover / research, most of which are not useful, and the ones you desire require increasing luck to discover to be able research and thus unlock.

A case in point, you start off MG Infantry formations, in the early game, but lets say you unlock a new unit type such as Artillery. What I really want here is a formation consisting of Infantry, machine guns, and Artillery with Trucks (for movement points). But to do so, you have to discover/research an Infantry/Artillery Formation, than rediscover another formation consisting Infantry/Machine gunner/Artillery, then repeat for Infantry/Machine gunner/Artillery with trucks (something to this effect anyway.) This is an overly time consuming development process to get to what is needed.

I really prefer what was done with Independent units, in that you can customize an existing Independent unit consisting of Infantry/Machine gunners, by adding Artillery. From here, it would seem to be natural to be able to form, via research, these Independent units into Formations. (I’m only presenting this as an idea, as there are probably more interesting ways of improving this game mechanic.)

Another frustration is the restrictions in being able to upgrade Formation types to other types (via the Unit Admin). If you want to field your formation of Infantry/Machine gunner/Artillery with trucks, and you starting off with a formation of Infantry/Machine gunner, you may have to downgrade to an Infantry formation first. From here you can upgrade an Infantry formation to Infantry / Artillery, then the next turn upgrade to Infantry/Machine gunner/Artillery with trucks (I’m making this example up to illustrate a point).

The frustration here is, it’s not clear what formation type will upgrade to the next type. There is a hierarchy that has to be followed, and it becomes a guessing game to get the desired formation. This is due to NO organization chart of formations types that show branching to the next formation types. Per the example above, I had to downgrade to an Infantry formation from an Infantry/Machine gunner, to get to Infantry/Machine gunner/Artillery formation, versus upgrading from Infantry/Machine gunner formation. If you wanted tanks you have to disband the formation, and reform as a basic Tank formation, then upgrade from there. (note, I’m making up these examples here, and forget the specific paths of the formation upgrades; I just recall it being fraught with confusion.)

Another element of the game is the OOB structure itself. Independent, Infantry, Mobile formations are separate from each other and there is no way to restructure the OOB. I typically position my units in fronts, say for example North, East, South, and Western front. Furthermore, have to mix Independent, Infantry, Mobile formations together. I really wish I could form Army Groups with a mix of armies/independent units, controlled via command center to able restructure my OOB according to these fronts.

A bonus to having a command center is it allows a promotion of leader of an OHQ to a next high position. Ideally there would be perhaps multiple layers of command post, to form a hierarchy of command. As it stands, I don’t see a path to promote OHQ leaders in the field to Cabinet position other than the SHQ position.

Regards,
Bellrock

bump! small patch 1.25c posted

Also to reply to the discussions, I think some further nerfing of infantry when fighting armor, is not a bad idea. I'll get back on that at some later point.

As for the other points raised. No rework of Formation Types planned at this point. It is always possible to extend a formation using a custom Formation Type though.

I do like the idea of adding a Front HQ level (multiple OHQ under command) as it could also serve as a base for ammo stockpiling. But this idea needs a lot more thought first.

best wishes,
Vic

Just a quick update, my observations on v1.25b against hard AI.

So far my experience against the AI has been positive - definitely noticeable improvements since last time.

The AI deploys a greater variety of unit types than previously, especially armored vehicles. The AI has pushed forward fairly aggressively at least with the armored units in my game. Also the relative overbuilding of air units I observed before seems to have been fixed, although my main game has been a relatively non-ideal planet for air forces. I saw one oddity of an AI building a recon buggy division (Maybe they hadn't discovered light tanks? I suppose we've all been there before).

In general the AI seems better at bringing up forces to the front line to defend cities. I really appreciate that. It's better at massing units at the very least. My main feedback here is that the AI sometimes deploys unsupported artillery units to the front line, and that AI arty seems to only rarely do bombardment missions. To play more optimally I would suggest the AI should also try to move up infantry to the front line a bit more rapidly and hug the enemy a bit more tenaciously, but at this point these are fairly fine details. Overall I am enjoying much more of a challenge, and while the AI is of course still just an algorithm it is now playing well enough to force the player to be a bit smarter about army composition and it is more challenging to fight at the end of a long supply line in combination with the ammo rework. The image below is an example of an AI front line from my game.



One further note: The AI in my game has used maritime transport quite a bit, although it sometimes persists in trying to land unsuccessfully at a defended location for quite a few attempts.

Xxzard wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 7:52 pm v1.25b against hard AI.

I would like to know exactly what logistics rules the AI uses.

The AI is a good opponent, much improved and effective. But I need to know what happens to its supplies when a Motorcycle squad cuts off their Medium Tanks, the ones with +93% AP movement cost, for example. As in: 'how many turns until they are immobilized?', or more importantly 'What penalties could i expect them to have on the first turn after they have been cut off'?"

Don_Kiyote wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2023 5:24 am

Xxzard wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 7:52 pm v1.25b against hard AI.

I would like to know exactly what logistics rules the AI uses.

The AI is a good opponent, much improved and effective. But I need to know what happens to its supplies when a Motorcycle squad cuts off their Medium Tanks, the ones with +93% AP movement cost, for example. As in: 'how many turns until they are immobilized?', or more importantly 'What penalties could i expect them to have on the first turn after they have been cut off'?"

You can find the Logistics Cheats in the Manual. Under
5.18. AI RULES DIFFERENCES
For airforces, 6.1.16. AI RULES DIFFERENCES

I have played SE for many hours but I havent played after 1.11 because the AI started to be a joke and it did not know what to do, its nice to see the economy and air improvements (the patch notes finally got me interested enough to buy the dlc and play again). So far the game has been much better experience overall.

Just wanted to say thanks to Vic (and everyone else) for positive game experience after all these changes!

zgrssd wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2023 7:07 pm

Don_Kiyote wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2023 5:24 am I would like to know exactly what logistics rules the AI uses.

You can find the Logistics Cheats in the Manual. Under
5.18. AI RULES DIFFERENCES

True, I looked back at it again, thanks for the reminder. It says 'free roads' and:

Free Logistical Points and AP Range on its Cities

Which is fine. But doesn't affect encircled, cut off units. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like those encircled AI units aren't being immobilized or incapacitated as much or as quickly as they should be.

In the above example^, there were two AI +90%AP Medium tank units, cut off by my hexes, just one or two, but for two consecutive turns. On the third turn they could still move. I can't see the supply levels for those AI units. And maybe I'm just griping because the AI is really hard. But even if they, the tanks, had fuel, to move in to and take a controlled hex with active ZoC on it, for a lets call it [+100%AP movement cost] unit, should cost 60AP even on Plains. Is that right: Rocky Plains would cost (10ap+10ap(take penalty)+10ap(ZoC penalty) * 2 = 60AP per hex...?

I'm lucky if my own, light units have 60AP left after a single turn of supply shock. And those tanks maneuvered, it seemed each turn.

Has anyone else noticed this, when encircling AI?

zgrssd wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 5:38 pm But in combined Arms warfare, being able to survive means nothing if the enemy just shoots your allies instead.

Well...yes but also no?

IRL, tanks + infantry is more formidable than tanks or infantry by themselves. There's a reason I brought up the Winter War - that involved the USSR rushing tank-only formations ahead of their infantry support, and it was an infamous disaster. It involved Finnish soldiers climbing on top of tanks, hacking open exhaust grills with axes, and dropping in the newly-named "molotov cocktails" to destroy the tanks. If the Soviets had been capable of combined arms - infantry screening the tanks - such actions would have been vastly more difficult for the Finns.

I feel this ought to be better simulated in Shadow Empire. I feel it's sort supposed to be, given that we can research the OHQ formations for multiple types of mixed armour-infantry units? It's just that, thanks to the way battle and damage is calculated (which you laid out), said formations are less useful than a split between pure tank formations and pure infantry/defensive formations. Motorised and mechanised infantry are useful (though mechanised can get very expensive) but adding tanks to the mix is seldom a good idea.

There's other ways the calculations can lead to wonky outcomes, too. Until some recent patches, one of the most insanely overpowered units was - of all things - high-calibre WW2-style anti-tank guns. Thankfully that's been mostly fixed, so we don't have to fight our battles with weird ultra-powerful mechanised ATG formations.

Don_Kiyote wrote: Thu Dec 07, 2023 8:07 am Which is fine. But doesn't affect encircled, cut off units. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like those encircled AI units aren't being immobilized or incapacitated as much or as quickly as they should be.

The AI does get AP bonuses on higher difficulty levels - I believe it isn't mentioned in the manual, but the AI has been shown to be capable of moves that are impossible otherwise. That should improve its ability to maneuver under fuel shortages as well.

Subject: Feedback and AAR on Shadow Empire's Latest Update

Vic,

I hope this post finds you well and happy holidays. I recently completed another playthrough of Shadow Empire and felt compelled to share my experience with you, especially considering the latest patch. Your dedication to incorporating player feedback is commendable, and as a passionate fan, I wanted to contribute my thoughts.

My recent desert game was with sparse civilization. We had around four major and two minor factions. The early game was a perfect blend of challenge and enjoyment. The economic pressures were well-balanced, and while dealing with marauder bands and a major faction, I managed to consolidate about 20% of the planet. The strategic and economic aspects of the game kept me engaged, constantly managing resources like power, industrial points, and fuel. The game didn't have much pressure on water for a desert play-though. The mining vane improvement with a reduction in access was a nice touch, but it seemed like it gave prospecting a second life. It did make economic choices easier on getting and holding areas. I started only two towns. The first was for an energy volcano and the second for metal and radioactives.

The mid-game presented unique challenges due to the terrain, with high mountains and vast deserts shaping my strategy. I encountered a couple of issues that might be worth looking into. First, when I conquered a minor faction city, their farm dome wasn't connected by road, impacting the city's development and migration patterns. All the private asset development backed up, and the cities' free folk town stopped moving into the city. The city resolved itself once I built the connecting road, but it could potentially frustrate newer players. I noticed one of the free-folk towns was not emptying, and the other private assets were filling the private farm dome asset and then staying empty.

Another intriguing scenario involved a minor settlement isolated by mountains and deserts. The competition with other factions to reach it was intense and satisfying, especially when I successfully cut off and outmaneuvered them. Upon capturing the settlement, the reward of a large population felt disproportionately large, almost triggering an endgame scenario. This might be something to consider in terms of balance.

Regarding diplomacy, I experienced some inconsistencies with the 'friendship' and 'shared victory' cards, requiring multiple attempts to maintain these relationships. I played the friendship card three times successfully and the victory card twice. This could be an area for refinement.

One additional note: The logistical pressure seemed to have been turned down. Normally, I have to get rail up to move ore from one of the small mining towns. The truck system and applied logistical science seemed to been fine. I knew about supply bases, and only a few materials came back from the 230K (V) minor settlement city. I was thinking I would have to do a second SHA, but the trucking system was robust through the mountains and desert sea.

Now, I'd like to highlight some of the aspects I particularly loved. The introduction of the ammo factory was a brilliant addition, providing strategic depth to late-game choices, especially regarding the use of energy weapons versus traditional ammunition.

The AI's decision-making has also improved significantly. In one instance, a hostile faction on my border refrained from attacking, likely due to its weaker position and the potential for a two-front war. This level of strategic awareness in the AI is a great development.

In addition, I wanted to commend another change you made: shifting the metal gathering facility to the far end of the tech tree. This alteration significantly impacted my gameplay strategy. In previous games, I would rush to this technology, as it greatly simplified many complex economic decisions. Moving it toward the later stages of the tech tree, it encouraged more strategic planning and decision-making throughout the mid to late game. This change added a welcomed layer of depth to the game's economic aspects.

I do have a query regarding the aviation development interface. I was under the impression that there might be an overhaul to the aviation development screen or perhaps a unified development screen for all models. Such a feature, where one could experiment with different inputs on a single screen without the need to constantly switch back and forth, would be highly beneficial. A 'back' button or some sort of cumulative overview as you adjust aviation models would greatly streamline the process. Due to the current complexity, I often find myself favoring helicopters for their relative ease of use, especially towards the endgame.

Again, I want to express my appreciation for your continued efforts in enhancing Shadow Empire. It's rare to see a game evolve so thoughtfully and responsively to its player base. I look forward to witnessing the future developments of this incredible game. Warm regards,

Tdoggs

The continued improvement of the game is certainly appreciated.

tdoggs99 wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2023 1:10 pm I do have a query regarding the aviation development interface. I was under the impression that there might be an overhaul to the aviation development screen or perhaps a unified development screen for all models. Such a feature, where one could experiment with different inputs on a single screen without the need to constantly switch back and forth, would be highly beneficial. A 'back' button or some sort of cumulative overview as you adjust aviation models would greatly streamline the process. Due to the current complexity, I often find myself favoring helicopters for their relative ease of use, especially towards the endgame.

Have you noticed that there's a blueprint tab in the mng interface?

I didn't notice the blueprints tab? I will check it out tonight. Thanks

Thanks for all the feedback, criticisms! And the compliments as well nice AAR just above here.

I am actually looking into making unsupported armour attacks more vulnerable. Got some ideas on the shelf here.

I have added a QA pass on the Minor Regime economies to the to-do list.

Best wishes,
Vic

New subversion D posted. Some fixes + some variety added for Minor Regimes.

I like the subcultures added in 1.25d!

Vic wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2023 6:35 pm New subversion D posted. Some fixes + some variety added for Minor Regimes.

I'm still in the middle of a 1.25c game, but the varying difficulties for unification/annexation sounds promising. My current game will probably be "won" soon due to absorption of minor regimes, instead of actual warfare - so I think tweaks are needed to balance that out. Maybe increasing difficulty of acceptance as the empire grows? Or maybe having the remaining majors start to behave more aggressively as the empire nears the win condition?

Part of the issue in the current game is that while initially the majors were very proactive in absorbing minors, they mainly did that only on their starting continent. With the minors on other continents, I was free to make them protectorates, and then absorb them at my leisure.

Love the patches, but I've been noticing how occasionally the Major AI's get trounced sometimes, or even permanently, by Wildlife or Minor Regimes.

I think the Major's don't form frontlines like they do against players, and I see Farmer Regimes basically pushing Major's against their capitals, starting resource mines. I saw one in my current game lose one of their recently Unified cities get captured by the same Farmers adjacent to their main city.

Sounds cheesy, but is it possible for the consideration of an option for Wildlife effectiveness to periodically decrease against AI? Every 5-10 turns, or starting around Round-30, all Non-Aligned Units become 10% weaker against AI, so they don't get held back tragically while players and other Regimes are eclipsing them.

-Hazard Exposure Level causes more Population, Worker and Free Folk losses when structural damage is inflicted in Hex where they live/work. Can go upto 50% loss at Hazard Exposure Level 10 (rare!!!) *

I thought this meant that things like artilleries firing in free folk settlements would turn out messy. I haven't noticed any casualties in practice. Is it only supposed to happen if there's an asset on top of a freefolk settlement?