I don't get "base design" any one does?

[Culthrasa]

From what is stated the base design should impact the design numbers for the next version (so assumption that those would be higher). But even with 96% field tested designs i don't see an improvement. Here are some screenshots. Even through a number of iterations the base numbers for fire power and armor aren't changed. What gives?

[Soar_Slitherine]

I got improvements to weapon design and armor design when I last ordered a new iteration of my own infantry model, so something does seem odd here.

[Thomas8]

If I understand correclty weapon/armor/engine design is 'rolled' number. Number that you roll for new models is compared to earlier model - then the higher one is used from the two - it looks you had bad roll- although I dont know if its 70-130 roll or something extra there.

[jpwrunyan]

The "base design" I think is preserved for historical purposes. It is always overridden by the modifier from field testing. That's why the actual base design on your units is like 127 by the fifth iteration. And that's the number that matters. Unless you somehow roll a new base design that exceeds the previous base design + field testing, it will never take effect.

This follows for the combat scores, too. The model gets to roll a new weapon design stat, but if it is lower than what the previous version had, the previous version overrides. In other words the weapon design of the previous model is a minimum value when creating the new model.

Structural design is the important number to roll high on if I understand it correctly. That *never* improves and so a bad roll from the start will stay with the unit forever.

All this goes out the door when you create a new model. All stats get re-rolled. But this can be good if the original design had bad stats (esp structural design) and your tech level is high. I think high tech level affects structural design roll and base design roll... but I am not sure because I haven't gotten that high in tech and then create a brand new model.

[Janekk]

Anyone knows what structural design and field testing/base design actually do? I'm guessing they improve your rolls on weapon/armor/engine since I just can't see how they affect unit stats otherwise.

[jpwrunyan]

I think that's exactly what they do. Base design might be the least worrisome stat because you can always improve it with field testing + redesign (to get more field testing). But I can't elaborate yet structural vs. base design. I *think* structural might only affect HP.

Edit:

Ok so I think I'm wrong on the HP thing. I just rolled an initial infantry with these stats:

Str.Design 90, B.Design 92, WEAP 76, ARM 57, HP i57/57, Soft 19/38, Hard 10/19.

So the Str.Design roll is below average and then the weapon and armor values are also kinda crap. But the HP is better I guess. Not sure how your first Line Troops didn't have an armor roll...? But yeah, I'm not sure how Str.Design is going to impact this model's career.

[Culthrasa]

But the base design number should increase the roll for the armor and weapon right? What else is it's use? That gets modified by the structural number (which is constant). It feels like the base design number doesn't DO anything (not added to any roll etc). The above is my example for inf but I also have 6 buggies in this game and been paying a lot of attention to it in my other games (this is my fifth total playthrough on normal to give an idea). Nowhere does it seem to factor in, it only gets bigger.

I have also improved models without any fieldtesting, so I know/get that improvements are possible, but I would have expected that going from 88 base design to 158 base design should have SOME effect (don't be fooled by the increasing soft/hard numbers they are improved weapons and linear techs).

[Soar_Slitherine]

The design log includes lines such as, "ENGINE DESIGN based on BASE DESIGN. Modified for STRUC. DESIGN". Based on this, I assume structural design just acts as a multiplier for all the design rolls. HP is already multiplied by armor design which looks it like it is already multiplied by structural design, so I don't see why the latter would also have an independent effect on HP.

[jpwrunyan]

I understand your question. Each redesign should have an improved base design (due to field testing) which should generate better rolls for your weapon and armor stats, right? I agree. But I think your weapon and armor score on a given unit *improves with* the field testing as well. So if you had a high base design and field tested it to end up with a modified high value on weapon and armor then subsequent rolls might not manage to exceed that high bar you've already set. I hope someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Now you've got me wondering what the hell structural design does...

By the way, I'm reviewing Das' video on stats at the 8:39 mark:
https://youtu.be/Ke3Cm8mlxos?t=519

[zgrssd]

To make sure I understand it:
Base Design should be as high as possible, as it is a bonus to every other roll. The rolls can stil be bad, however.
The new design keeps the better of: It's own rolls or the previous designs rolls.

So, no improovement can happen. It is not a problem.

What do I do with a "no improovement" design?
Just obsolete it, and try again from the predecessor? (it propably got some more field testing done since then).
Use it from now on (but with no need to upgrade) for new production? So I get a higher start for the next roll?

[Culthrasa]

ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan

I understand your question. Each redesign should have an improved base design (due to field testing) which should generate better rolls for your weapon and armor stats, right? I agree. But I think your weapon and armor score on a given unit *improves with* the field testing as well. So if you had a high base design and field tested it to end up with a modified high value on weapon and armor then subsequent rolls might not manage to exceed that high bar you've already set. I hope someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Now you've got me wondering what the hell structural design does...

By the way, I'm reviewing Das' video on stats at the 8:39 mark:
https://youtu.be/Ke3Cm8mlxos?t=519

I think we are on the same page here. I do find it weird that even with the fifth iteration line #2 still lists the base design as 96 and lin #27 states that the previous version had a higher number?? I would have expected line #2 to be 158 (Base design number of the mark IV plus the fieldtesting) and that line #27 would have stated ... don't know... what???

There is no calculation given for lines #21 #22 and #23 which is the crux of it all. The lowest number I have seen there is in the 60's. My assumption has been random number (60ish to 100ish)*Base design * structural design or something similar.

[jpwrunyan]

here's another post for reference:
I had bad stats on my original infantry and so I designed a new infantry from the ground up which had way better stats. However the Str.Design on the original was slightly higher so I'm not sure anymore whether I shouldn't have just redesigned based on my original infantry. I'm starting to think the only reason to redesign from scratch is if you get a bad Str.Design score *or* you gotta get better stats now and don't have time for field testing a unit.




Anyway, as you can see, I had such high rolls on my Line Troops that my next version didn't roll any higher and the previous values were used. Had I kept my Riflemen, I imagine they would have seen better rolls the next time I did a redesign.

[Culthrasa]

I agree.. I only look at the structural design number to gauge if i'm remaking the entire design. Nothing else seems to matter... Bad engine/weapon/armor roll are rerolled every update (even without the base design influence i suspect) and eventually you roll lucky on all three... the Str.design is a given...

[Bookworm83]

The thing is looking at the design log the armor, weapon, engine design values are rolled with the random base design the design starts with. The base design isn't replaced with the previous model plus field testing until after that happens. So I don't see how you would ever get anything more than random improvement in those fields from a lucky roll.

[Geezerone]

Forget about line 2, that is just the Base Design of your Trooper I model. Instead look at line 26 of Trooper V; that is now your Base Design value for this model. As you improve your models over time these variables get updated later and later (row # wise), so just look at the last Base Design variable in your list and that is the one one being used (same goes for every other variable). Line 2 Base Design is there for some unknown to us reason. I'm guessing that this table that's shown to us is the print out of the actual data structure used in the coding of the game.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan

here's another post for reference:
I had bad stats on my original infantry and so I designed a new infantry from the ground up which had way better stats. However the Str.Design on the original was slightly higher so I'm not sure anymore whether I shouldn't have just redesigned based on my original infantry. I'm starting to think the only reason to redesign from scratch is if you get a bad Str.Design score *or* you gotta get better stats now and don't have time for field testing a unit.




Anyway, as you can see, I had such high rolls on my Line Troops that my next version didn't roll any higher and the previous values were used. Had I kept my Riflemen, I imagine they would have seen better rolls the next time I did a redesign.

You rolled a 117 and 114 on a 70-130 roll. 100 is average and the difference is only 3.
I usully get 80-87 Str Design!

It really depends how willing you are to make a Rifleman 2 with just changed gear, and then fieldtest it seriously.

[Bookworm83]

ORIGINAL: Geezerone

Forget about line 2, that is just the Base Design of your Trooper I model. Instead look at line 26 of Trooper V; that is now your Base Design value for this model. As you improve your models over time these variables get updated later and later (row # wise), so just look at the last Base Design variable in your list and that is the one one being used (same goes for every other variable). Line 2 Base Design is there for some unknown to us reason. I'm guessing that this table that's shown to us is the print out of the actual data structure used in the coding of the game.

Line 2 is not the base design of your first model. It is rolled new for each model. If it is lower than the base design of the previous model plus the field testing it is replaced. Otherwise it isn't.

I can see this is in the three models in my current game. My first model rolled a base design of 87. My second model rolled a base design of 89, and was not replaced because I didn't have much field testing at all at that point. Then my third model rolled an 86. Not only was that lower, but I had a lot of field testing so it was replaced with a new value of 131.

However the Engine, Armour, and Weapon designs for my third model were 59, 84, and 71 respectively. Which are pretty lower rolls even for a starting model, much less one with 131 base design. So either base design doesn't really have much effect, or those values are being rolled based on the initial base design and not the modified one rolled over from the last model. Which would be consistent with the fact that the line numbers are lower than the line number of the modified base design.

[Destragon]

ORIGINAL: Bookworm83

The thing is looking at the design log the armor, weapon, engine design values are rolled with the random base design the design starts with. The base design isn't replaced with the previous model plus field testing until after that happens. So I don't see how you would ever get anything more than random improvement in those fields from a lucky roll.

Yeah, I noticed this, too.
It first generates a random new base design value, then uses that value to generate armor, weapon, etc, values.
THEN it replaces the base design value and does apparently nothing with it.

Is the log saying this out of order or is there something buggy here?

[Culthrasa]

@VIC.. can you help us out? Are we reading it wrong or is something not working as intended?

[WeaverofBrokenThreads]

From my understanding, and this is just purely observational data I gathered, it rolls engine, weapon and armour based off of base design, and then modifies it based off of structural design. Or at least, I think that is how it is supposed to work. I could be wrong though.

For the sake of complete understanding, I will use some numbers which I think are likely close to how it actually works.

BD = Base Design
SD = Structural Design
WD = Weapon Design
FP = Firepower

So let's say you put a 1000 FP gun on your whatever. You roll a new model and it has 110 SD and 100 BD. When it comes to rolling WD, I think it might be something in the range of +/-30 BD. I have seen it go as high as 28 in the positive direction.

(Addendum) In my other thread where I point out that field testing adjustment are not being used properly, I use this as a basis, because the actual values rolled are far below the +/- 30 I mention, which is otherwise consistent.

If we assume that the 30 roll range is accurate, then in our example, you might get super lucky and roll 130. With our 110 SD, I imagine it is 130 * 1.1, which puts it at 143. Your final FP is 1000 * 1.43: 1430. Which later gets modified for soft attack based on weapon type, attacks, etc.

In short, the WD, AD and ED values are always random. When you are making a model, you want to make something with high SD. You can fairly easily get high BD. It might even be a tactic to make really cheap units, throw them into battle, and then develop a new, OP version with proper weapons and armor and engine.

Hope this helps.