Walls? To give cover, or not to give cover?

Old version with cover mechanic

Originally, I had the simplest of walls costing 30.
And having 5 hit points.
Analog to this, I could have walls that cost 100. Where of tier 3 armor and thus had 50 hit points.
The tier 1 armor walls would have 16.7 hitpoints. Let's say 17.

To give you an idea. This wall would be able to provide cover to a rifleman. Who would have only 5 health. Due to certain rules. It would be as if this wall would provide 6 hit points against tier 3 or higher weaponry.

New version with cover mechanic

The new wall that would only be blocking movement.
Costs 100. But offers 100 hit points.
The tier 3 armor version would even provide 300 hit points. But could suffer 34 hit points against tier 3 or higher weaponry. Roughly 6 times better in durability. But no cover mechanic.

The new wall that would be supplying cover for any unit or structure.
Would again, cost 100.
And with the cover being set to 100. The wall would have 7 hit points.
The tier 3 version has 21 hitpoints. But can suffer only up to 3 hit points of tier 3 or higher weaponry.

Old effectivness with cover mechanic
Basic situation:
A rifleman and a wall together would be a total of 22 hit points.
1*(5+17)=22 points

Event Card?
Only 5 points!

A "support" rifle (times 2) only and a wall together would act as a total of 17 hit points.
2*17=34 points

Event Card?
0 points!

A "modular" rifle (times 2) on a wall. Would have 17 hit points as well.
2*17=34 points

New effectivness with cover mechanic
A rifleman and a wall together would be a total of 12 hit points.
1*(5+7)=12 points

Event Card?
5 points!

A "support" rifle (times 2 times 6) only and a wall together would act as a total of 7 hit points.
12*7=84 points

Event Card?
0 points!

A "modular" rifle (times 2) on a wall. Would have 7 hit points as well.
2*7=14 points

Conclusion
Basic from 22 down to 12. Default 5.
Extreme support from 34 up to 84. Default 0.
Modular from 34 down to 14. No default.

Higher risk, higher reward.

Better to try things "braindead" in Excel.
All costs are supposed to end up on 100.

I had no idea why I had that 7 health.
But I need to remind myself.
"Weapon" as cover, which is supposed to be 100. Doesn't cost 100 if the "attack range" is 0. No, then it costs only 60.

For a fair comparisson. Cover can be given to any unit in this consideration. But no doubt that a bunker would give access to infantry only. which are Organic Units. (Make no mistake, cyborgs are also "organic units" but then have a higher armor type)

Old walls and bunkers:
- Blocks movement
- Gives cover
- Cover stacks
- Health 17
- Weak to event card

New wall:
- Blocks movement
- Health 100

New bunker 100%:
- Blocks movement
- Gives cover
- Health 7
- Yes to, modular weapon
- Increases space

New protective wall 75%:
- Blocks movement
- Gives cover
- Cover stacks
- Health 9
- Weak to event card
- No modular weapon

New bunker without windows 50%:
- Blocks movement
- Gives cover
- Health 13
- No modular weapon
- No firing till destroyed or exited
- Increases space

A rifleman, old version:
- Blocks movement
- Gives cover
- Cover stacks
- Health 5
- Weak to event card
- 1 point per 1 health removal

A rifleman, new version:
- Blocks movement
- Health 5
- 1 point per 1 health removal

"Maximum" rifle power:
- Blocks movement
- Health 0
- 12 points per 1 health removal

Modular rifle:
- DOES NOT, Block movement
- Health 0
- 2 points per 1 health removal

***

Now to consider the cover options for a rifleman.
When a rifleman needs to take cover?
And I should also consider; how durable would this position even be? Meaning, what if everything needs to be destroyed?

- 5 points in the bunker without windows.
Once the bunker is destroyed, the rifleman will start shooting.
18 durability points.

It takes 13 hits before the rifleman gets injured. Event cards don't help here. But the rifleman can't shoot either. If the goal is to block an enemy. It would be better to use a wall that cannot provide cover. These have a durability of 100.
On a side note...I realized that a bunker without windows has a size of 100. And anything that is "carried" looses their size. Since it is in the cost calculation. This means that an entire reagion could get bunkers like this. A player can store 200% worth of units this way.

We could also consider this to be a durability of 18%.

- 14 points from behind the wall. The rifleman can shoot from behind the wall. But a certain Event card could allow a weapon to ignore the wall. And shoot the rifleman straight away. In that case, only:
5 points.
In both cases;
14 durability points.

Funfact now. This combination has a size of 200. While the bunkers are going to be only 100.
Either way, with going from a durability of 18 down to 14. The rifleman can shoot now.

Due to the size limitations. The durability is 7 per 100 size. In other words, 7%.

- 12 points for using a typical bunker.
12 durability points.

While a rifleman can still shoot. It isn't endangered by a certain Event card. And, the size of this combination is 100.
A player can pay 200%. And have the durability go from 5 per 100 size up to 12 per 100 size. Thus, 12%.

- 15 points if no cover can be taken. And there is a second rifleman present.
10 durability points.
Durability is only 5%.

- Just 2 walls?
Durability is 200.
Thus 100%.

***

All combo's cost 200; summary:

No windows bunker
5 damage
100 size
18 durability
18% durability

Cover wall
14 damage
200 size
14 durability
7% durability

Cover wall + Event card
5 damage
200 size
14 durability
7% durability

Typical bunker
12 damage
100 size
12 durability
12% durability

Just riflemen
15 damage
200 size
10 durability
5% durability

Just walls
0 damage
200 size
200 durability
100% durability

***

If a player uses just riflemen, the lowest durability and the highest damage takes place.

If a player uses just walls, the highest durability and the lowest damage takes place.

I could sort the damage now. But also the durability.
From low to high.

Damage
0 Just walls
5 No windows bunker
5+ Cover wall + Event card (triggering this is damaging too)
12 Typical bunker
14 Cover wall
15 Just riflemen

Durability
10 Just riflemen
12 Typical bunker
14 Cover wall
14+ Cover wall + Event card (triggering this is increasing durability somewhere else)
18 No windows bunker
200 Just walls

The ranking goes from 0 to 5.
If size is reduced, this adds 1 more ranking point.

Looking at the position points
6 Typical bunker
6 No windows bunker
6 Cover wall + Event card
6 Just walls
6 Just riflemen
7 Cover wall

This technique, I learned it from someone.
It isn't 100% usable.

If an Event card is played, the cover wall looses only 1 ranking point. Meaning that this Event card actually brings balance.

I forgot to add.
The typical bunker with a modular rifle is also an option.

With the size changes, the health doubled.
It is 14.
A modular rifle doesn't add health. But has 2 points per health.

This combination is worth 28 points.

It makes sense, since this combination cannot run, nor chase.
While a rifleman instead, can.
So, the points for the time being are 15, 19, 21/5, 28. And each option becomes less mobile.

I need to be carefull though. The modular weapon is 28. 1 rifleman in that same bunker is 19 points.

But what about extreme support??
I realized that my extreme support is different that a modular weapon.
A factor 6.
While a modular weapon also gets destroyed due to having no health.
An extreme support does have health.

The modular weapon acts as if the design is normal. Meaning that a bunker with an automated machine gun would be exactly the same.

The extreme support is 14 health, 12 points per health. The damage points are 168...
Behind a wall it is even worse. 196 points.
The only thing about a wall would be that an Event card would turn it into a 0 pointer.

And thus, we are back at square 1.

***

I understand if you are confused about these extreme support. But any unit that deals more damage in weight, than has health in weight. Is considered to be support. And the bigger the difference, the bigger the bonus.

The extreme support is simply the maximum possible difference.
Pretending that the 0 health is still health. And thus an object.

The bonus is applied due to the game originally having no cover mechanics.

***

There is another option. Besides of size. A sumsize for the cover mechanic.
This means that the extrme support would have a different size now.
600 instead of 100.
And the extreme support that fits this sumsize of 100 would be 1/6th and thus the same as a modular weapon.

This...means that support units are larger for cover mechanics. But so are the meat units.
Well, doesn't matter.

How does this work?
A heavy support infantry with rifles, has a body of 24 (2.4 health), and a weapon of 96 (1.92 points per health). The cost is 100 for the new system. The sumsize is 120. This doesn't fit.
A smaller heavy support infantry with rifles, has a body of 20 (2 health), and a weapon of 80 (1.6 points per health). The cost is 83.3. The sumsize is 100. This fits.

For a good comparison. I better design a typical bunker, wall and blind bunker that give cover for 120. While the cost is 100.

Then I put the version with a cost of 100 in it. So that the total cost is 200.

When I consider a typical bunker plus with cover 120, size 200 and cost 100.
The health drops from 14 to 12.

The plus version of a wall drops from 16 to 14 health.

A support infanty has 2.4 health and 1.92 damage per health, a sumsize of 120. A cost is 100.

The points (rounded up) are now:
28 for the typical bunker plus.
32 for the Wall plus.
5 for the wall plus + Event card

Durabities are:
14.4 and 16.4.
Compared with the 100 cover which are 19 and 21.
Thus lower,which means less chance to chase. It is more a defensive position too. This is good.

Extreme support with a sumsize of 120, would be 2.4 damage per health. But would cost only 20.
The modular weapon of sumsize 120, has a cost of 120.
Still the same 2.4 per health.

This modular weapon gets a different typical bunker.
I could call it minus. The cost has to be 80 while the cover is 120. And the size has to be 200. So the total cost and size is 200 again.
It has ??? health instead of 14.
This typical bunker minus yields ??? points.

I need to double check this at home.

I realized today. That certain designs will be having a weird sumsize.

One of the earliest designs would be an infantry unit of the 2:3 ratio. With this design costing 100. The body is 40. But the weapon is 62.

With a sumsize of 102....it kinda shows how accurate this should be.

I need to find a way without the sumsize.
What else could I do?

Edit: rounding of course. I have a list of costs that fit 3 different types of games. While the costs can be planned. The sumsize would be rounded. 102 would become 100.
122.5 could be either 120 or 125. The official rule is 125. However. If the cost had a negative trait. The sumsize will have a positive one.

If replied, it is to the last one of the double ones.
If too much gets removed. No worries.

These posts are like research. I record what I did and my findings (and more) on my own pc.

In any case. I shall discuss and conclude on the rankings now to be certain.

PS. I replied to your post about deleting. So, don't delete that one :D

***

Points
When I look at the points, then at how durable they are.

-->Walls for cover effects?
The wall with support is the best option. Still it is the weakest one when an event card is used.

The wall with a normal rifleman is weaker as expected. But the jump is rather a lot. -40%.
When an event card is used. This combination isn't that much stronger.

In regards of durability, the wall with the normal rifleman is slightly more durable. And both walls are in the top 4.
Why the typical big bunker with a rifleman is there. Probably due to the durability of both objects. And it is slightly less usefull than the wall and rifleman in terms of durability. This small difference is enough though for giving the wall and rifleman a little edge in both points and durability compared to giving the rifleman a bunker. The weakness is that event card.

What I didn't take into account is the survivability of the victims and thus the chance to run away. Which is a next step in strategy in response to the event card. The support has only half the health. And seeing as how equal armies can destroy roughly 1.7 health. The support would escape with only 0.7. While the normal one would escape with 3.3. That is a huge difference that is not noticed right away.

-->The different types of bunkers
As for points between the 2 wall situations. We got 28 points for the typical big bunker with a modular weapon. In a sense, this is just one object. And it is good. It cannot run away either.

Next one is the typical big bunker plus. With a support. The support could decide to exit the bunker and run. For that option, the effect is only 1% less in points. And the durability is almost 3% more. Well, the difference is 0.4 in both cases.The differences are also very small. These 2 are somehow (perfectly?) balanced. Not sure, my guts is telling me. I need to keep an eye on these 2 in the future.

We take a leap to close to the wall with a rifleman. Before that one, we have the cheaper variant of the bunker. The one with the support is slightly stronger now in points by 0.3.
Compared with the one with the second version of a modular weapon. Not only that, it is 10% cheaper. First I pondered if I should make more variants or add 11% to the points. But whatever I do. It would not really be fair. In a sense, in regards of points, the one with the support rifleman is much better. As for durability...this difference is bigger.
There are 2 things to say about this. 1, I expected the combination with the weapon being better in terms of points. This due to the mobility of the support. 2, I suspect this happens because the cheaper bunker acts slighlty as a support 4:5. And the support rifleman indirectly has its support ability pulled in exponentially. Thus. considering these type of bunkers isn't that smart in the game. These designs might not be that good at all. Still, they are BETTER than the next batch.

This same cheap bunker with the first version of a modular weapon is a BAD decision making. And thus should be removed from the comparisons in ranking. It was in there due to the reduced costs. And perhaps it would be better. But if I multiply the points with 1.11. I get 20. Which is still worse. And if I multiply the durability by 1.11. I get 10. While this is better. It makes these 2 with the different weapons balanced. But in a sense, the cheap bunker is specifically designed to host the second version of the modular weapon. Indirectly it is balanced though. No doubt about that.

For 17 points, we got another cover issue.
I should not consider this one. Since the bunker itself is designed to hold bigger units (even if it is at only 20%). It clearly shows how much of a difference it makes when a support infantry takes a seat in this bunker.
Although....the durability jumps with 3 points as well. But this is nihil compared to the points.

We arrived at a 2 man squad of only riflemen.
They have the best mobility.
As for durability... they are winning over the 2 bunkers with modular weapons. As for one of the 2 bunkers, I said, it doesn't count, but it is balanced anyway. As for both bunkers with weapons. The damage difference is the choice. This seems to be a fine choice, depending on the game as well.

(I should make a list of "attack" points and "defence" points)

While 18.0 BBP80+W1 *Note 4; cost=180+cover is considered to be NOT considered. We can clearly see what happens when we replace the weapon for a mobile rifleman. The points drop. The durability rizes. This is good. Although it doens't count.

The least ranks in points are the mobile squads. Where they also are balanced due to power they have when they are not attacked. In a sense. If you have a transport. It is certainly wise to send in 2 support infantry.

***

I am satisfied.
2 cups of coffee made me awake enough to analyse this all.

Things I could do (for my own analytical fun):
- Make 2 lists of points. Offensive and defensive.
- Reduce all lists by removing those that have the cover issue. Since a better choice is avaiable.
- Adjust all lists by adding 11% to the remaining option that costs only 180. For a better comparison: 11% is added with combat mechanics in mind.
- Add a mobility list: This would be only 0, 1 or 2 points for the retreat.

I decided I should make a clear list now. Hopefully my pc doesn't just shut down on me here. Making the list for a second time.

The player stays put and tries to deal as much damage to the enemy as possible.
Defensive Points
0 = 0 WW+WW
1 = 4.6 W+S Event card
2 = 5.0 W+R Event card
3 = 12.0 R+S
4 = 13.8 S+S
5 = 15.0 R+R
6 = 19.0 BB+R
7 = 21.0 W+R
8 = 21.6 BBP80+W2
9 = 27.0 BBP80+S *Note 4; costs adjusted
10 =27.6 BBP+S
11 =28.0 BB+W1
12 =35.3 W+S

The player needs to get out and attack the enemy artillery.
Offensive Points
0 = 0 WW+WW
0 = 0 BB+W1
0 = 0 BBP80+W2
1 = 4.6 BBP+S
1 = 4.6 W+S
2 = 5.0 BB+R
2 = 5.0 W+R
3 = 5.7 BBP80+S *Note 4; costs adjusted
4 = 12.0 R+S
5 = 13.8 S+S
6 = 15.0 R+R

The player wants to hold of the enemy as long as possible in terms of rounds/turns.
Durability
0 = 4.8 S+S
1 = 7.4 R+S
2 = 9.0 BBP80+W2
3 = 10.0 R+R
4 = 12.7 BBP80+S *Note 4; costs adjusted
5 = 14.0 BB+W1
6 = 14.4 BBP+S
7 = 18.4 W+S
8 = 19.0 BB+R
9 = 21.0 W+R
10= 200 WW+WW

The player needs to get out and attack the enemy base. Or build closely to it...
Power
0 = 0 WW+WW
1 = 1 BB+R
1 = 1 W+R
2 = 1.92 W+S
2 = 1.92 BBP+S
3 = 2 R+R
3 = 2 BB+W1
4 = 2.13 BBP80+S *Note 4; costs adjusted
5 = 2.4 BBP80+W2
6 = 2.92 R+S
7 = 3.84 S+S

The player wants the region to be completely blocked. But wants to use any mobile portion for somewhere else.
If room does open up. This mobility counts only half.
Mobility with blocking
0 = 0 WW+WW
0 = 0 BB+W1
0 = 0 BBP80+W2
1 = 0.5 W+R
1 = 0.5 W+S
2 = 1 BB+R
2 = 1 BBP+S
2 = 1 R+R
2 = 1 BBP80+S *Note 4; costs adjusted
2 = 1 R+S
2 = 1 S+S

The player wants to use any mobile portion for somewhere else. Or simply run away due to the fact that they might be otherwise doomed anyway.
Retreat Mobility
0 = 0 WW+WW
0 = 0 BB+W1
0 = 0 BBP80+W2
1 = 1 W+R
1 = 1 W+S
1 = 1 BB+R
1 = 1 BBP+S
1 = 1 BBP80+S *Note 4; costs adjusted
2 = 2 R+R
2 = 2 R+S
2 = 2 S+S

***

Adding up the ranks and see how strategic the combination is for a player.
Note: This doesn't mean that a higher score is better overall. It is just that certain players prefer certain playstyles. And a higher score often means more viable options. WW+WW scores the lowest overall. But highest for 1 goal at the same time.

10 = _0+0+10+0+0+0 WW+WW
13 = _1+1+_7+2+1+1 W+S Event card
15 = _8+0+_2+5+0+0 BBP80+W2
16 = _2+2+_9+1+1+1 W+R Event card
18 = _3+4+_1+6+2+2 R+S
18.5 halfway point of the W+S
18.5 halfway point of the W+R
19 = 11+0+_5+3+0+0 BB+W1
20 = _6+2+_8+1+2+1 BB+R
20 = _4+5+_0+7+2+2 S+S
21 = _7+2+_9+1+1+1 W+R
21 = _5+6+_3+3+2+2 R+R
22 = 10+1+_6+2+2+1 BBP+S
23 = _9+3+_4+4+2+1 BBP80+S *Note 4; costs adjusted
24 = 12+1+_7+2+1+1 W+S

***

Some options certainly show a lot of merrit. The one where the BBP80 is involved in having either a W2 or a S. Is huge in difference. It makes me wonder, why a player would even use a weapon. If putting a support infantry is much much better. Still, as said before. The score indicates the number of options. So, using a modular weapon. Is it better in any situation? Yes, but only by a small margin in 1 situation. When a player manages to place it right next to the enemy base. Which is... not going to happen. So, in a sense, I need to see if I can boost the modular weapons a bit more in anyway. Then again, perhaps as said before, it is just a bad design?

BBP80 is designed to hold a support infantry in the first place. And it is BB+W1 that is the design to hold a modular weapon in a most balanced way. This one has 2 situations for being a better choice. Defence and Durability. The one with the support infantry scores more on mobility. So, this is certainly a choice.

When I look at the list. And the ingredients. I should consider the ranking here too?

Size
Most units start with stats.

Stats used to equal the costs.

And costs used to equal the size.

If a size would be changed, the costs would change too.
Due to combat density changing, thus damage per turn.
Larger objects would become cheaper and smaller objects would become more expensive.

The change in cost was the square root of the change in size.
A 900 stats unit, made smaller to size 400, would cost 1350.
This was balanced.

SumSize
I need more flexibility here.
As said before, the sumsize for certain meat and support units is not only completely different. It is also giving weird numbers when costs are normal or vice versa.
I figured rounding. But also allowing the sumsize to be changed.

The sumsize is only appliable when there are forms of cover not weak against event cards.

I figured, if changed as well. The factor should be less. I am thinking about the cube root.

So, when looking at the support infantry having a sumsize of 120. And want to bring this down to 100. The factor is 1.2.
The cube root of this is 1.06. That means that the cost would become 106.
If I want the costs to be 100. Then the size will expand by 1.06^2=1.13
So, a size of 100 with sumsize 120. Or a size of 113 with a sumsize of 100.

I see potential new strategies. But also problems.

How to get the costs, size and sumsize all on exactly 100?
Then stats would have to change too.

Now things get complicated.
To know what I am doing here. I need to set up a formula. I need... brainpower for that.

Those who kept track of this all. Yeah, I am adding new variables and then try to balance them out.

I should make a start for the formula's first. And converge.

Stats = (Body + Weapon + 10x (Body x Weapon)^(1/2) ) /6
Body = 24, Weapon = 96
(24 + 96 + 10x (24 x 96)^(1/2) ) /6 = 100
Stats = 100

Sumsize = Body + Weapon
24 + 96 = 120
Sumsize = 120

At this moment, the size is still equal to the costs and stats.

SizeF = Goalsize / Size

Cost = Stats / SizeF^(1/2)
Goal at the moment is 1 for the SizeF.
100 / 1 = 100
Cost = 100

SumsizeF = Goalsumsize / Sumsize

Cost = Stats / SumsizeF^(1/3)
Goal at the moment is 1/1.2=0.83 for the sumsizeF.
100 / 0.94 = 106
Cost = 106

Converging the two.

Cost = Stats / SizeF^(1/2) / SumsizeF^(1/3)
Goal at the moment is 100 for the cost.
Thus, stats is the variable here.
100 = stats / 1^(1/2) / 0.83^(1/3)
Stats = 94

Has a mistake been made in the last step?
Let's see what a stats of 94 means to the rest.

Body = 22.6
Weapon = 90.3
Stats = 94.1 = Size
Sumsize = 112.9
Goalsize = 100
Goalsumsize = 100
Cost = Stats / SizeF^(1/2) / SumsizeF^(1/3)
94.1 / (100/94.1)^(1/2) / (100/112.9)^(1/3) = 95.1

I don't know my mistake yet. But the answer had to be 100 here. Not 95.1