Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sackofsand]

Hello everyone, first post on the forum.

So I looked everywhere and could not find a clear answer to how ground defense and enemy raid strength works. According to the wiki, ground raid effectiveness is calculated by attacker strength / (attacker strength + defender strength), this can never be zero. Does this mean regardless of how strong my colony's ground defenses are, or how weak the attacker strength is, the raid will always succeed to a degree causing stability and accessibility penalties? Or can a raid fail completely if the differences are overwhelming?

As for attacker strength, is it based on the total size of the remaining fleet(after fighting the orbital station and other patrols) or the number of marines they have within the fleet? If the enemy fleet gets past my patrols and the orbital station, but their fleet was reduced to a tiny portion of what they originally had, their ground raid strength should have also been reduced if it is the former. If the latter, as long as they still have the ships that were transporting the marines than regardless of their remaining fleet size it should retain the ground raid strength, is that correct?

[pedro1_1]

Hello everyone, first post on the forum.

welcome to the forum

So I looked everywhere and could not find a clear answer to how ground defense and enemy raid strength works. According to the wiki, ground raid effectiveness is calculated by attacker strength / (attacker strength + defender strength), this can never be zero. Does this mean regardless of how strong my colony's ground defenses are, or how weak the attacker strength is, the raid will always succeed to a degree causing stability and accessibility penalties? Or can a raid fail completely if the differences are overwhelming?

it will fail if the diference is overwelming, sometimes, you can make all space battles useless if you manage to have enought ground defences

As for attacker strength, is it based on the total size of the remaining fleet(after fighting the orbital station and other patrols) or the number of marines they have within the fleet? If the enemy fleet gets past my patrols and the orbital station, but their fleet was reduced to a tiny portion of what they originally had, their ground raid strength should have also been reduced if it is the former. If the latter, as long as they still have the ships that were transporting the marines than regardless of their remaining fleet size it should retain the ground raid strength, is that correct?

it's based on the nunber of marines, and yes, as long as they have the ships that are transporting the marines, they will still retain their strenght

[Mondaymonkey]

Keep calm. Defending your colony in vanilla are easy. Just build ground defense and upgrade it to tier 2 - heavy batteries, build orbital station and upgrade it to tier 3 - star fortress, build patrol HQ and upgrade it to tier 3 - hight command, raise it's population till size 5. That it, your colony is 98% will remain untouched as little raids able to beat that. You wish 100%? Add a planetary shield or use alpha AI cores in defense structures or learn a planetary operation skill (if you are governor) or assign governor with that skill (like alpha AI) or just wait till colony size 8. That's all, it invulnerable. In vanilla.

In some mods, like Nex, you probably need all of that "or" to be enough safe.

[Histidine]

NPC raids (e.g. pirates) need at least 25% raid effectiveness to cause any stability effects, so sufficient ground defenses will negate them.
For Hegemony inspections, each core has a <raid effectiveness> chance to be taken.

For the raiding calculation, the number of marines is assumed to be 1/4th the fleet's crew capacity at the time of raid, with bonuses such as Planetary Operations and Valkyries also applying. If the fleet is abstracted due to the player being too far away, it assumes the total strength to be (<fleet's number of "fleet points"> * 6) instead.