Self Destruct Units

[Sikander]

Marione,

If I understand what Ogie is saying here:

1) Mitigate is not the word he should have used here, as bases and bunkers (as I understand it) completely protect units in them from any damage. They are proof against self destruct damage (or as you say provide immunity from such damage).

2) The calcualtion is quite simple when there are more than one targets adjacent to the self destructing unit. Use Ogies damage formula, and then apply the full damage to every adjacent unit. This is what makes the self destruct so overpowered.

[MariOne]

...each and every unit adjacent to the self destructing unit is damaged.

FLASH!
sorry if it took me 3 posts to get it.
Were you attempting to explain me that...

...the calculated damage is individually inflicted to every adjacent unit, REGARDLESS OF STACKING ??????

So, I'd finally understand that your formula was correct, and not *10 HP factor was needed!

BTW, you counldn't choose a *worse* example, as a stack with exaclty TEN units, just like TEN are the hitpoints of one (fission) unit...

So, let's say that I have a stack with 17 units, and I detonate a Laser Fission units or a Scout Fusion one, yielding 1HP damage...
I would then inflict that single HP damage to each and every ajdacent unit, regardless how mant they are and how they're stacked.
I'd inflict 1 HP on every single unit of those 17, leaving 17 units with 1 HP less they had before...
Had the units been 99, I'd have inflicted 1 HP on every single of those 99 units....

According to this, as a Conventional payload is equiparated to a 12 weapon (or is the DW display wrong? I thought it was 18...), a Fusion Conventional missile would detonate with 12 HP damage, costing 6 rows to build, while a Tachyon Fusion infantry would detonate with the same damage, costing the half to build... (of course, it lacks the missile's delivery range...)

Did I finally got it right?
However, let someone who taught use of MS Office programs for a living for 10 years long tell you...
I might be dense, but you have to go a long way to learn to make things clear when you explain them...

[Flubber]

what sikander said

Thats why I said earlier that the bigger the stack , the more effective this tactic is . . .

[MariOne]

Well, thank you all for bearing with me!

[MattyBoy]

This thread demonstrates that there are two classes of SMAC player - those who play MP and those who do not. I'm in the latter camp and have never had to understand how self-destruct works as I never face coordinated attacks.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MariOne

:However, let someone who taught use of MS Office programs for a living for 10 years long tell you...
I might be dense, but you have to go a long way to learn to make things clear when you explain them...

Ahh grasshopper you finally reach for the pebble of knowledge and grasp it. LOL...

I never claimed clarity of thought or clarity of explanation

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

All this discussion of self destruct units and the equation that explains the amount of hits doled out to each and every adjacent unit is a bit off track.

My original question remains, Does anyone use self destructs and more to the point if doing so is there an opportunity to make them even more powerful by setting up an arty barrage to hopefully nick them enough so the ensuing self destructing detonation then takes out the entire stack?

Og

[Mongoose]

I don't use artillery all that much. When I do, I almost never put it adjacent to the enemy...rather defeats the point, I think.

But...a similar effect can be had with a rover or tank. If you can kill one unit in the stack and collateral damage the rest, self destruction might then destroy them all. Alternatively, an intial self-destruct to weaken the best defender, then a rover attack, trying to get the rest with collateral damage.(and maybe a second self-destruct?)

Problem with this approach is that you generally only do self-destruct when you're out-gunned and/or outnumbered, so having two units to throw away might be an unaffordable luxury.

[big_canuk]

Do fusion scouts cause 1 hitpoint lost, or must a self-destruct unit have at least some weapon to cause any damage?

bc

[MariOne]

NOW that we all start from equal understanding basis ...
I would say (sepaking from theory and never having tested it):

b_c:
scouts DO HAVE some weapon!
they have strength 1 weapons (hand-weapons)
indeed scout patrols are NOT non-combat units (i.e., they ARE combat=weaponed units)
Thus from the formula with W=1 and R=2, HP=1

OgOg:
before Fusion, the best weapon you usually have is Chaos (you might go for UFT=Tachyon weapons, but I only saw buster go down that path once, usually you beeline for Fusion, and from there SuperLube>Orbital>AdvSF is at reach).
A Chaos Fission unit inflicts then only 4 detonation HPs damage.
Any means which will lower the enemy's health should provide your kamikaze(s) the margin to kill them instead of just hurting them.
By the time you have Fusion R, units are cheaper, and 10-strength weapons (Fusion Lasers) are not far away.
I can't recall offhand, but even if a step up in the Fusion units costs does indeed kick in above Chaos, why bother to detonate a Chaos Fusion unit (8HP inlficted), requiring some preventive 20% enemy HP softening, and not directly detonate a slightly more expensive 10-x-x*2 unit (10HP inflicted)?
Of course this is valid if you can plan it. I admit that if you have to deal with what you have available in a nick of time (after Fusion but before SuperLube, and/or due to logistic restraints), you'll have to do with what you have at hand....

Mongoose:
"outgunned" does not fully express what you yourself had made previously clear.
Detonation is most useful when due to technical restraints you cannot attack the enemy in the first place (leave alone gunpower ratio). E.g. you lack SAM ability against Jets.
And anyway, "outnumbered" does not only mean 1 vs many. If you have 3 units against 10, "throwing away" all the 3 of them "could" not be a luxury, but even convenient, especially if they'd be toasted anyway...

The discriminating points are:
- urgence of the damage you need to deal against the impending enemy threat
- expectation of future damage that unit could deal if surviving (and repeatedly attack again in next turns), vs one-off more widespread damage it could inflict by detonating

[big_canuk]

What is the most efficient unit for self destuct?

As MariO has indicated, post fusion it is the 10-x-x*2. Infantry is cheaper, but noodle has more range.

Prior to fusion, it is the ever versatile 4-1-10 noodle or chopper. Only costs 2 rows, and causes 2 damage. I can never have enough of these guys. The choppers are also very usefull for suicide/maping runs into enemy territory. If you have crawlers, you *better* have interceptors covering them.

bc

edit versitale --> versatile.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Post orbital insertion I would think a best weapon drop capable infantry would be the unit of choice. Infinite range and relatively cheap.

My thouhts on Arty were a window of opportunity with chaos weapons wherein a stack is damaged via the arty and then followed with either self destruct of thearty or similar 8-1-1 grunt unit. The arty if in standoff bombard mode would withstand two blasts from an intervening 8-1-1 and then would have to pull back to heal. That would be if memory serves 4 rows of mins wasted to destroy a given stack(assumuing you get the arty to deliver 20% damage). This would find applicability against interceptor covered stacks of land units where one does not yet have the means to deal with the air unit.

As previously stated, using this ploy you get the advantage of an "attack" at the extreme range of the unit. So assuming your scrambling infantry from a base along a road, you could rush infantry to the scene from three squares distant and detonate. This effectively adds another movement point to your forces which becomes huge for infantry.

If you use non elite ground transports and have elite infantry that translates into an effective attack/response range of 4 movement points. (just another shameless plug for ground transports ) 5 for elite transports (which are darned difficult to get)

[Mongoose]

A fission chopper (without CBA) has an effective self-destruct range of 39 tiles. 47 tiles for fusion reactor.

That's a long way! IF you can get there undetected.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Does workshop upgrading and detonation make sense?

Suppose you build a 1-1-1 drop shell. Drop it, move it, then upgrade at the workshop, and then detonate it.

Cost is 2-3 rows of mins(?) plus upgrade energy (100 + credits per shell unit)

Probably too expensive.

Hmmm

Also susceptible to air defenses preventing drops.

One thing that does make sense for detonation is nerve gas campaigning. Every so often I'll find a base that for some glitch within SMAC(X) has 20 or more air units, be they missiles or noodles. If you gas the base into oblivion with a chopper the remaining air units remain intact and are assumed to be in the air and can not be attacked by a conventional chopper. (you need an air superiority unit to get at them and realistically you won't likely be using SAM choppers in a deep air only offensive). One or two self destructs would more than wipe out the 20+ air units now hanging in the air over the smoking ruins of the base.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Mongoose
A fission chopper (without CBA) has an effective self-destruct range of 39 tiles. 47 tiles for fusion reactor.

That's a long way! IF you can get there undetected.

Actually technically speaking the "attack" is delivered in a one square radius so effective attack range is 40 w/o CBA and 48 with fusion reactor.

Simply returning the favor of pointing out an otherwise missed detail (ala 8 crawlers LOL )

Og