Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40]

Author Topic: Shadow Empire PBEM round 2: game on  (Read 33289 times)

Il Palazzo

  • Bay Watcher
  • And lo, the Dude did abide. And it was good.
    • View Profile
Re: Shadow Empire PBEM round 2: game on
« Reply #585 on: June 13, 2023, 01:26:19 pm »

Do we want to officially wrap this up? I'm not sure I could set myself back on the grimly determined track, and I'm curious about your secrets.
Logged

E. Albright

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Shadow Empire PBEM round 2: game on
« Reply #586 on: June 13, 2023, 06:31:05 pm »

Oh, god, at this point I'll have to set myself on a grim track to determine what my secrets were. I kinda think I remember, but it'll take me some time to get back into the headspace to fully remember the nuance of them - some parts may have been lost forever.
Logged

Il Palazzo

  • Bay Watcher
  • And lo, the Dude did abide. And it was good.
    • View Profile
Re: Shadow Empire PBEM round 2: game on
« Reply #587 on: June 13, 2023, 06:43:19 pm »

I mostly want to know from you what you meant by having an 'aha' moment when learning to use the nukes properly. Like, I still have no idea what you could have meant. Remembering to attach them to brigades for leadership bonuses, maybe? I'm hoping for something more esoteric.

Also, if Karlito - assuming he's around still - thinks he's made some major mistakes that set him back w/r to us two, or if it was all attributable to the shite initial placement. I'm sort of suspecting the game might just be inherently too prone to unbalanced outcomes, to warrant the sort of commitment multiplayer requires.
Logged

Karlito

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Shadow Empire PBEM round 2: game on
« Reply #588 on: June 13, 2023, 07:47:33 pm »

I could maybe get back into it if people want. Went through a period of long work hours and then I moved houses, it was a whole thing.

I do blame most of my difficulties on the initial start- I had lower population from turn 1 and there were few minors around to consume for more. Maybe my profile choices were wrong- Enforcement has logistics and tax bonuses that could have been useful early on. It felt like things were looking up around turn 100, though I'm not sure I would every really have meaningfully caught up. I'm also not too keen on a multiplayer game that involves many months of solitaire play as a build up. Maybe 1v1s on small maps is the way.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2023, 07:49:32 pm by Karlito »
Logged
This sentence contains exactly threee erors.

E. Albright

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Shadow Empire PBEM round 2: game on
« Reply #589 on: June 13, 2023, 08:05:03 pm »

Yeah, that's the stuff I was talking about forgetting. I'll try to remember, but some forgetting is more-or-less inevitable after several months of playing nothing but Guild Wars 2 and Satisfactory - I might have slightly burnt myself out on SE [and other 4x/wargames] between our game and (mostly) the beta testing.

Remembering to attach them to brigades was one ah-ha moment, as was making sure the brigades were in a posture like Blitzkrieg for Attack and AP bonuses. Not taking them back out between turns even though it made them safer was another - that costs you a lot of readiness. For the first 10-15 turns, I was shuttling around one commander in Blitzkreig to be present at every nuke launch regardless of whether they were on the north or south front, but then I'd detach the nukes during your turns to make them safer and make it less obvious what I was doing b/c you didn't seem to be using similar postures for your artillery. That not only denied them the AP bonus from the posture, but also cost them readiness from detaching and attaching the subunit - and IIRC readiness directly translates to a modifier to your attack value, so the difference b/tw 20% readiness and 80% can easily be "I killed one guy" and "I killed one stack". Besides not swapping in and out of formations, just taking a turn off was often useful for actually being able to hurt my targets. Nukes weren't getting full readiness recovery between turns, but (if I can be forgiven for using made-up but broadly indicative numbers) regening 20% per turn from, say, 10% to 30% each turn meant the unit was never going to be worth a damn but if they took a turn off, gained 20% while using none, and then and then regened 20% from 50% to 70%, they could maintain the same rate of fire while being twice as strong. Again, these numbers are made up but the idea holds - and this really compounded with the aforementioned lost readiness from constant reassignment.

At least one later ah-ha moments was the depressing realization that unlike real heavy artillery, the best kill ratios in SE come from areas where troop deployments are very thin. Concentrated troop deployments protect the troops from getting hurt by spreading out progressive defense decay as non-lethal hits wear down surviving units rather than being spread across the many troops piled up within the blast radius. This is 100% a factor of how SE treats artillery as a series of weaker successive attacks that randomly hits something in the hex each time rather than a strong AoE attack that hits everything there (or a portion of everything there) with a single blast. That arguably makes sense for artillery, up to a point - artillery operates in barrages even if this still makes bigger stacks safer from artillery than small ones. However, nukes are just one really big blast, so  this doesn't even work conceptually. This inspired me to stop trying to blast large stacks of troops unless they had something really weakening them, b/c otherwise I'd barely scratch them. The units with compositions I wanted to blow up basically laughed off nukes in my tests, while the units I did vaporize would either be really weak, momentarily vulnerable, or only a couple of troops. It's why the times I managed to sneak a nuke into range of your HQ units they were vaporized - well, that, and the fact that HQ units don't get the leadership bonuses their subordinates do, so their subunits would be like 10x weaker than subunits in the line units I couldn't scratch. You may have noted I had all my command units in huge piles, often with pure garbage militia, but also line units held back from the front - this was why. Soaking up artillery subattacks made the concentrated stack harder to wear down - and keeping the line units there helped avoid cascading failures as readiness/morale/fortification/etc were gradually reduced, subunits died, and the remaining attacks were concentrated on fewer and fewer, weaker and weaker troops.

The last ah-ha I can remember was that nukes in particular aren't great for weakening entrenched units prior to an attack - but they're absolutely devastating in wiping out routed units after a victory, even if the victory basically just pushed the defending stack back w/o killing much of anyone. The loss of fortification combined with morale and readiness loss would be the difference between a nuke killing 1-2 subunits and then the conventional attackers pushing them back with slightly fewer losses taken and slightly more inflicted but most all of the defenders alive to fight another day... and the conventional forces needing to fight harder to push the unit back but the nuke then destroying 80-100% of the retreated troops. The nuke going first makes conventional hits more likely and nuke hits less likely, while reversing them swaps those - but of the two, only nuke hits have an autokill chance. This is also why making a bloody but unsuccessful push with conventional forces followed by nuking the victorious defenders usually worked better than softening the defenders with a nuke before attacking.

Put together, you end up with some really counterintuitive outcomes. Nukes are terrible against massive formations of fresh troops in fixed positions... but they're great at wiping out small, sparsely-deployed formations or large amounts of scattered, mobile troops. The same things are true of artillery & aircraft, but they don't feel quite as ridiculous b/c those are at least multiple munitions over a period of time causing multiple strikes within the AO.

I'm pretty sure I've forgotten at least one other tricky bit gleaned from testing & in-game experience, and verified by subsequent usage. If it randomly comes back to me, I'll pass it along, but I'm not optimistic.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2023, 08:32:39 pm by E. Albright »
Logged

Il Palazzo

  • Bay Watcher
  • And lo, the Dude did abide. And it was good.
    • View Profile
Re: Shadow Empire PBEM round 2: game on
« Reply #590 on: June 13, 2023, 08:35:35 pm »

Yeah, that's detailed enough. Cheers.
You using large stacks full of chaff to provide extra protection against bombardment also meant that they've received large overstacking maluses possibly negating some of the benefit. Not sure where's there breakaway point, but I think you might have wasted some potential there. In Burancon specifically, I remember your troops having -50% strength on defence for that reason.

One more thing I'd like to know - how far were you from getting ICBMs?

I could maybe get back into it if people want.
I think we're good. At least I'm not too keen on it. Just reading about how nukes work in EA's post there gave me a heartburn.


Thanks for playing, both of you. Even though Karlito never did get to see any actual multiplayer-y action.
Logged

E. Albright

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Shadow Empire PBEM round 2: game on
« Reply #591 on: June 13, 2023, 11:01:19 pm »

Aye, thanks to all three of ya for playing. Quality grumbling and whining all around!

IIRC w/o booting back up, I would have been deploying them on my next turn and shooting them the turn after. I would have been deploying them during the final turn I played, but I got a garbage roll with my MilSci director that turn so I had only 95% completion on my launcher design.

Not surprising about the overstacking malus. It really did feel like your troops in the south were pushing me around effortlessly, and it didn't really make sense why. OTOH, the No Retreat posture let me hold on by throwing wave upon wave of bodies at the problem...

The long solo startup phase does seem to be detrimental to multiplayer games - it's a long time before you can tell with certainty how unbalanced a map is. The best option, I think, would be an accelerated start with 3 zones at tech level 5 on a mid-sized world. The more resources everyone starts with, the more balanced your starts are likely to be b/c randomness is reduced. I know this is not a popular take with a lot of the existing MP player base, though -they all argue for as few starting resources as possible, which tends to magnify initial imbalances, but is gratifying for players who like the idea of their victories being entirely skill-based. They also don't like playing on high difficulties, though, so they miss out on the most abhorrent of kaiju and have unreasonable rosy notions about how alone and scared your troops should be on the frontier...

I think Oceania might work better for MP games as well, just b/c it constrains expansion more while also giving more and earlier opportunities for remote player interaction. IDK, though - I only played it SP. I may revisit things if I somehow find myself with free time in the next couple of years (ha!) if and when Vic adds player-controlled navies as he's said he intends to. He'd also stated that he wanted to do a major recon overhaul this year, which could also make things a lot more interesting.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2023, 07:05:55 pm by E. Albright »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40]