Right, I just spent several hours (yes I'm a sad individual sometimes) running tests with/without radar for an HLT vs 12 lvl 1 units.
I used Battlefield Straya as a map cause it's flat.
I used "random enemies" which generated either 12 Samsons or 12 raiders.
I used an ARM HLT mainly, though also tried MRPCs towards the end.
Observations:
1. The Sams were much better at taking out the HLT than the raiders. Most times they'd win with around half the sams dead. This was because almost all the Sams shots hit.
2. The raiders got toasted virtually every time.
3. The radar made no difference to dealing with the sams since you got a "return fire" effect when they hit the HLT anyway. Without LOS the HLT seems to very rarely hit the target, regardless of radar, whereas the Sam's shots hit most of the time, regardless of LOS.
4. The only times the raiders beat the HLT were when the radar was on. With radar on, the HLT would occasionally fixate on a radar blip, which it couldn't kill, meanwhlie a close-in raider or two would take it out. With radar off the HLT always won (except for when the HLT became buggy and refused to shoot at a target that was killing it).
5. The thing that did for the raiders was the fact that they tended to open up as soon as they got into firing range and then didn't move any closer. As a result they were firing at a target which they couldn't see and were missing all the time. Come to think of it, this has happened to me many times in games - I've sent some units to attack an enemy, and they've sat there firing at a distance, missing all the time instead of moving close enough to get LOS. I guess this is where the tactics comes in - you need to make sure you get LOS!
6. When I tried MRPCs it's clear that they do get some advantage from radar targeting. From a group of 12 raiders, at least one would come in half dead by the time it got into LOS. However, I think that's a fairly minor effect. When I had an MRPC and HLT up at the same time, the HLT was still getting far more kills than the MRPC.
Conclusions:
1. HLTs are effective because their LOS is big and most units stop short of getting LOS on the HLT, so they simply can't hit it.
2. A solo HLT can be taken out by 12 samsons on a good day (dependent on wreckage not being in the wrong place, no other targets to distract from the HLT etc.)
3. The HLT/LLT "won't fire" bug looks like it's related to mistaking enemy units for friendlies (more on this on the bug forum)
4. Radar targetting *can* help e.g. MRPCs, but the "makes defenses lethal" argument just doesn't hold water, since the mainstay (lasers) doesn't benefit from it.
5. Radar targetting makes life more difficult for mobile units, because it means they tend to stop short of their target and miss all the time, which means you need to micro them to get them to attack effectively.
Unfortunately I ran out of time before I could test the effect of ATFs - I'll maybe try them another time. Obviously this isn't the most comprehensive of tests, focusing mainly on HLTs, but it was an eye opener for me - I hope it helps some of you.
Cheers
Munch
Radar targetting, HLT effectiveness and homing missiles
Moderator: Moderators
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
Well, to be honest, I feel that this validates what I have been saying about auto-targetting unbalancing the game, but I wont proceed to extrapolate until further evidence arrives.
I'd like to see the following tests performed (won't get a chance to attempt them for a little while, but if noone has done it by the time I get back, I'll have a crack):
- What is the effect of radar on missile tower defences? This is the most common defence in TA, and is therefore significantly more important as a means of evaluation.
- Using a common assortment of level 1 units and defences, run a couple of tests to determine what the effect of radar on an assault force is. I suggest as a test to send a number of different sized attack forces (atkeast one weaker, one about on par, and one much stronger) at a constant defence. Perform this test when the defenders only have radar, when the attackers only have radar, when both have radar, and when both don't have radar.
This last test is to determine the extent that radars hurt an offensive force. As for the "common defence", I suggest some MT's, a guardian and an HLT. Common level 1 attacking units is rather obvious, but be sure to mix in a number of short ranged units (ie flash/peewee) and missile units.
I'd like to see the following tests performed (won't get a chance to attempt them for a little while, but if noone has done it by the time I get back, I'll have a crack):
- What is the effect of radar on missile tower defences? This is the most common defence in TA, and is therefore significantly more important as a means of evaluation.
- Using a common assortment of level 1 units and defences, run a couple of tests to determine what the effect of radar on an assault force is. I suggest as a test to send a number of different sized attack forces (atkeast one weaker, one about on par, and one much stronger) at a constant defence. Perform this test when the defenders only have radar, when the attackers only have radar, when both have radar, and when both don't have radar.
This last test is to determine the extent that radars hurt an offensive force. As for the "common defence", I suggest some MT's, a guardian and an HLT. Common level 1 attacking units is rather obvious, but be sure to mix in a number of short ranged units (ie flash/peewee) and missile units.
Warlord Zsinj:
Missle towers may be the most important defences in OTA, however they are almost irrelevant in XTA as a ground defence structure.
Also, have you ever tried sending a construction unit along with your attack, and letting it build a radar close to the enemy ? Its Micro no doubt, but tolerable for me.
Missle towers may be the most important defences in OTA, however they are almost irrelevant in XTA as a ground defence structure.
Also, have you ever tried sending a construction unit along with your attack, and letting it build a radar close to the enemy ? Its Micro no doubt, but tolerable for me.
More tests
Good idea, but hey, I'm not the only person who can run tests! In fact tomongus wrote:may i bug you a little...
get the costs for the HLT.
then build units with cost=HLTcost.
run tests on it.
use mixed units.
use monoculture (single tipe of units).
use lvl2 and lvl1 mixed... etc.
you're going to need two human players, since you have no control over the "random enemies" use of radar - they effectively have radar all the time, since they just attack the closest enemy unit (or something similar). So some of these tests are going to have to be run by other people.WZ wrote:Perform this test when the defenders only have radar, when the attackers only have radar, when both have radar, and when both don't have radar.
Next thing to do on my list is the ATF.
Cheers
Munch
PS If you do want me to try some tests with the units' metal/energy/BT cost based on HLT cost, go ahead and post the spawn.txt file and I'll try it out if I get time. However, I don't think "equal metal" type tests are particularly useful for comparing ground defenses to mobile units, because ground defenses can't move. Part of what you're paying for with a mobile unit is its mobility. To defend a base against say 1500 metal worth of assualt units you need as many HLTs etc. as it takes to cover your perimiter. If you just bulid 1 HLT, I'll move my mobile force to another part of your base (as people frequently do in real play).
ATF tests
Summary: ATFs rock. That is the SY's did a great job balancing the gameplay between LOS, radar and radar+ATF.
K, first up, I ran most of these tests from a clean game because when I started rerunning the raider tests, I found that the wreckage had made quite a big difference, so that 12 raiders do have a fair chance of taking out a solo HLT, as long as they close enough to get LOS instead of hanging back at firing range (needs microing).
What I found was that ATFs make HLTs considerably more effective. They don't hit radar blips all the time by any stretch of the imagination, but enough to make a noticeable difference to their effectiveness.
From an attacker's point of view ATFs help a lot. When defending you generally have better LOS than your opponent, so the ATF doesn't add that much extra. When attacking however, the ATF goes a long way to redressing the balance that the defender has with his superior LOS. Of course you need to pack a mobile radar, or some other form of radar coverage to benefit, so it's not as simple as "build an ATF and your attack gets better".
Conclusions:
- Getting LOS is easily the best way of getting shots on target
- Radar + ATF cover helps, especially when attacking with long range LOS weapons like a penetrator - without the ATF your range advantage is going to depend on you getting LOS on your target, which can be almost impossible in a well defended base.
- Radar + ATF doesn't help much at all with shorter range attacking units like raiders, or even Hammers, because they can't outrange HLTs and inevitable end up inside the enemy LOS
- Radar + ATF doesn't help much at all when attacking with low accuracy weapons like mobile artillery because the main component of the inaccuracy is the weapon itself.
- Radar on it's own is mildly helpful for MRPCs, but pretty useless for LOS weapons like HLTs
- Although the SYs have done an amazing job balancing the gameplay between nothing->radar->radar+ATF->LOS, the cost of the ATF is way too high. Not a bad idea to have the massive buildtime, since it is clearly a strategic resource, but the metal/energy cost and running cost are way too high considering what you could build instead, which you could use to get LOS directly.
Cheers
Munch
K, first up, I ran most of these tests from a clean game because when I started rerunning the raider tests, I found that the wreckage had made quite a big difference, so that 12 raiders do have a fair chance of taking out a solo HLT, as long as they close enough to get LOS instead of hanging back at firing range (needs microing).
What I found was that ATFs make HLTs considerably more effective. They don't hit radar blips all the time by any stretch of the imagination, but enough to make a noticeable difference to their effectiveness.
From an attacker's point of view ATFs help a lot. When defending you generally have better LOS than your opponent, so the ATF doesn't add that much extra. When attacking however, the ATF goes a long way to redressing the balance that the defender has with his superior LOS. Of course you need to pack a mobile radar, or some other form of radar coverage to benefit, so it's not as simple as "build an ATF and your attack gets better".
Conclusions:
- Getting LOS is easily the best way of getting shots on target
- Radar + ATF cover helps, especially when attacking with long range LOS weapons like a penetrator - without the ATF your range advantage is going to depend on you getting LOS on your target, which can be almost impossible in a well defended base.
- Radar + ATF doesn't help much at all with shorter range attacking units like raiders, or even Hammers, because they can't outrange HLTs and inevitable end up inside the enemy LOS
- Radar + ATF doesn't help much at all when attacking with low accuracy weapons like mobile artillery because the main component of the inaccuracy is the weapon itself.
- Radar on it's own is mildly helpful for MRPCs, but pretty useless for LOS weapons like HLTs
- Although the SYs have done an amazing job balancing the gameplay between nothing->radar->radar+ATF->LOS, the cost of the ATF is way too high. Not a bad idea to have the massive buildtime, since it is clearly a strategic resource, but the metal/energy cost and running cost are way too high considering what you could build instead, which you could use to get LOS directly.
Cheers
Munch
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59