C# Ground Combat

[Father Tim]

It's either shift or control clicking on multiple ones.

That was it, not at all intuitive it seems.

It's the default windows behaviour.  It seems a lot of C# works that way, so now Aurora does as well 'cause why write all new code just to do a thing differently than the way the language pre-built it?

[QuantumPete]

So I have a question about ranks when it comes to RP.

According to my (limited) understanding, a platoon is generally commanded by a lieutenant, a company by a captain, a battalion by a lieutenant-colonel and a brigade by a brigadier-general.  So as you go up platoon->company->battalion->brigade, you end up skipping some ranks, like major and colonel.  I understand that that these are typical ranks and that a major can command a company.  Though generally a major would be some sort of XO or operational officer within a battalion.

My issue/question is this: When using automated assignments (and preserving my sanity), commanders get relieved when they go up in rank, meaning in my RP scenario a captain going up to major would lose his company, but wouldn't be able to get a battalion.  He's now sitting around trying to accumulate promotion score to get back into a formation.

Could we get either min/max ranks per formation (so I can put major/lieutenant-colonel for a battalion) or better yet, HQ Staff Officer positions? Where they can add some part of their skills to the formation they're in?

[Polestar]

I have had the same question. I could have resolved it by making or asking for a altered list of ranks. The way I actually resolved it was to place companies in cohorts, and cohorts in battalions.

In reality, modern military units often incorporate ~3 subordinate units within the span of control of a superior formation - and if they diverge significantly from this, as with companies do in a battalion, then, in order to widen the effective span of control, they set up some way to support the superior officer with intermediate subordinates. Such as Majors supporting the Lieutenant Colonel typically commanding a battalion.

A way for Aurora to natively support this phenomenon would to assign a "span of control" to every HQ. This would replace the officer command stat. All such HQs could be assigned a limited number of subordinate formations and directly attached units, as well as a limited size, before penalties kick in. This limit could be increased if an "executive officer" or "second-in-command" were assigned, having a rank less than the commanding officer, and at least equal to the maximum of any officer commanding any subordinate formation.

A Battalion would, under this proposed system, have a Lieutenant Colonel in command, a Major as second-in command, and have sufficient "span of control" to accommodate the number of units and subordinate formations Steve desires such formations to be able to handle.

[ranger044]

So I have a question about ranks when it comes to RP. 

According to my (limited) understanding, a platoon is generally commanded by a lieutenant, a company by a captain, a battalion by a lieutenant-colonel and a brigade by a brigadier-general.   So as you go up platoon->company->battalion->brigade, you end up skipping some ranks, like major and colonel.   I understand that that these are typical ranks and that a major can command a company.   Though generally a major would be some sort of XO or operational officer within a battalion. 

My issue/question is this: When using automated assignments (and preserving my sanity), commanders get relieved when they go up in rank, meaning in my RP scenario a captain going up to major would lose his company, but wouldn't be able to get a battalion.   He's now sitting around trying to accumulate promotion score to get back into a formation. 

Could we get either min/max ranks per formation (so I can put major/lieutenant-colonel for a battalion) or better yet, HQ Staff Officer positions? Where they can add some part of their skills to the formation they're in?

You can do this to a degree.  When designing you formations you can pick the rank that commands it.  You can't put a range in it but you can still pick who commands what.  In my games I tend to use Majors at the battalion level and LTCs for Regiments and Colonels for Brigades.  I usually delete Major Generals and Generals of the Army.

[H11F]

So I have a question about ranks when it comes to RP. 

According to my (limited) understanding, a platoon is generally commanded by a lieutenant, a company by a captain, a battalion by a lieutenant-colonel and a brigade by a brigadier-general.   So as you go up platoon->company->battalion->brigade, you end up skipping some ranks, like major and colonel.   I understand that that these are typical ranks and that a major can command a company.   Though generally a major would be some sort of XO or operational officer within a battalion. 

My issue/question is this: When using automated assignments (and preserving my sanity), commanders get relieved when they go up in rank, meaning in my RP scenario a captain going up to major would lose his company, but wouldn't be able to get a battalion.   He's now sitting around trying to accumulate promotion score to get back into a formation. 

Could we get either min/max ranks per formation (so I can put major/lieutenant-colonel for a battalion) or better yet, HQ Staff Officer positions? Where they can add some part of their skills to the formation they're in?

This can also be different within different countries.  For example, in the Canadian Army: a Major is an OC - Officer Commanding.  An OC commands a Company.  The Deputy Commanding Officer of an Inf Bn is also a Major, albeit a senior one.  The Pl Comd's are typically Lt or Capt, depending on the type of Pl.  For example, a Mech Inf Pl is typically commanding by an Lt.  Support Pl's, such as Recce, Mortar, Pioneer, Anti-Armour, are typically (though not always) commanded by a Capt.  And of course, that is just using an Inf Bn as an example.

Now, how your RP is up to you.  But I typically follow what I am familiar with.  Plus, let's me use all those wonderful ranks!

[QuantumPete]

The Pl Comd's are typically Lt or Capt, depending on the type of Pl.   For example, a Mech Inf Pl is typically commanding by an Lt.   Support Pl's, such as Recce, Mortar, Pioneer, Anti-Armour, are typically (though not always) commanded by a Capt.

Right, so let's say in my infantry brigade I have three infantry battalions and an artillery battalion, I could make the artillery companies commanded by a major in stead of a captain, but that means that a captain with an amazing Artillery Skill bonus languishes in an infantry battalion, until he gets promoted.  Likewise, an excellent captain with great front-line bonuses gets a promotion and finds himself in an artillery company, where he's far less useful.

I think having Staff Officers would solve all of those issues.  They could be added like HQs (much like FFDs are) and you can then decide that your company needs just an XO, but your battalion requires a logistics officer as well.  Your brigade additionally an operations officer and a signals officer.  Heck, let us create our own staff officer positions like we can Naval Commands.  That way my Imperial Guards can have a commissar to watch over them 

[xenoscepter]

I think you can freeze promotions using a button on the Commander Window, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

You can however make a medal with a huge negative promotion score and that will accomplish the same thing, namely, making sure your good Frontline Captain doesn't end up a Major.

I believe you can SpaceMaster demote officers, though that might be unappealing to you.

[QuantumPete]

I think you can freeze promotions using a button on the Commander Window, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

You can however make a medal with a huge negative promotion score and that will accomplish the same thing, namely, making sure your good Frontline Captain doesn't end up a Major.

I believe you can SpaceMaster demote officers, though that might be unappealing to you.

I'm not worried about them promoting, I just don't want to have promotion gaps from captain to lieutenant-colonel for example, while not having to make one branch of my military use a different rank structure than another. 

I mean, I can always go say that a lieutenant-colonel commands a battalion and a colonel a brigade, though that's not correct based on NATO military ranks and usual assignments.  Perhaps I will go with the idea of having intermediary units like a demi-battalion (or company-group) so I can put a major in the chain of command, but it breaks the immersion for me.

[Elvin]

You are able to rename all of the ranks to whatever you want, if that helps. Then you can just adjust the names to suit your play style, and assume any intermediate ranks are handled behind the scenes or whatever you wish. The game is open to all sorts of RP interpretations.

[ranger044]

Theoretically you could make xo positions, make an hq unit by itself, or with some FFD or Supply, pick a rank to command it and then have it support another formation.  I don't think it would actually do anything as any extra hq is redundant though.  If you gave it some supply units and FFD it might be useful if some Frontline units die off.  It would make for good role-playing, but even I think that would be overly micro and time consuming.

You could also put it in the OOB, like have a Battalion HQ > Battalion Staff > Battalion Support > Company HQ > Company Staff > Company Support > Company Line Units.  Again, that's a lot of formations and micro but it could theoretically do something

[Borealis4x]

I have had the same question. I could have resolved it by making or asking for a altered list of ranks. The way I actually resolved it was to place companies in cohorts, and cohorts in battalions.

In reality, modern military units often incorporate ~3 subordinate units within the span of control of a superior formation - and if they diverge significantly from this, as with companies do in a battalion, then, in order to widen the effective span of control, they set up some way to support the superior officer with intermediate subordinates. Such as Majors supporting the Lieutenant Colonel typically commanding a battalion.

I put Majors in command of battalions and Colonels in charge of regiments. Its just nicer to have a full bird in charge of a regiment, since in my armies regiments are the 'core' units of the army. It does leave LT. COLs kinda in an awkward place tho. I wish XOs were a thing in ground units.

It would be cool if the larger an HQ was, the more officers could be assigned to it in addition to the CO and XO. For example, an HQ with a command capacity of 100,000 and up (roughly division-sized if you assume 1000 size = company) would have an intelligence officer slot, a logistics officer, a liaison officer, and an operations officer.

[Borealis4x]

Is there any benefit to have mobile artillery or AA if they are going to provide indirect support anyways? I feel like they should get a defensive bonus from being able to shoot and scoot.

[xenoscepter]

 - There is no specific benefit IF you put them in the Support or Rear line positions. In Front Line attack or Front Line Defense, however, Medium Bombardment can be useful. First off though, if you set the Artillery or AA to "Avoid Combat" they'll take an 80% malus to their accuracy along with an 80% bonus to their evasion. So it's not an ideal arrangement to say the least. All Bombardment types EXCEPT Light Bombardment fire in a separate Bombardment phase. In the C# Ground Combat, you also have counter-battery fire. If you include Medium Bombardment vehicles in your Front Line Attack or Front Line Defense positions, they will fire on any enemy formations in the Support position that fired a bombardment at them, such as Light Bombardment.

 - At least, they SHOULD do that; I still have yet to test this out for myself. As for vehicular Artillery and AA in general, vehicles have more armor and hit points than Infantry OR Static, but much, MUCH lower Fortification. That includes both Max Fortification AND Self Fortification. In terms of combat rules, this means they are decidedly worse than static or infantry, but with a big pair of caveats. The first big caveat is that it assumes your infantry and/or static units are allowed to get fortified. If the enemy is attacking you while your invading their planet... well that could be a problem. It is worth noting that you need Construction Vehicles to get to Max Fortification with anything anyways, so that's a factor too.

 - The second caveat is that if/when your units DO get hit, they'll have more armor AND hit points, which is a bigger deal than it might seem at first glance. Penetration values of enemy Artillery, hell, ANY artillery tend to be meaningfully lower than equivalent tech armor, while the damage they do per individual shot isn't that good. So your hit points will go further since you can more easily tank their shots, and if you're under fire during say, a contested landing, that will help... IMMENSELY. As for AA, Ground Support Fighters are underwhelming, so go nuts and do whatever you want. I recommend a Medium Vehicle with Light AA, Light Bombardment and Medium Vehicle Armor for Support Line and a Medium Vehicle with Heavy AA, Heavy Bombardment and Medium Vehicle Armor for Rear Line. It's worked a treat for me thus far.

[Jorgen_CAB]

The evasion stat ONLY works for units in Offensive Line. All the other positions use the current fortification level as a means to avoid being hit in combat.

The only reason to put artillery into a vehicle is to give them survivability in a smaller space when transporting them in a space ship. You get more quality for the same space on your ships.

The main issue I have with this though is that is always is better from a resource perspective to build more invasion ships and cheaper ground units. This only if you remove the role-play aspect of reducing loss of life in combat over more resources spent in combat.

I also found that tanks in general are less efficient than just more infantry... especially against NPR as most NPR seem to use very little vehicles anyway. This from a resource perspective. Or at least light or medium vehicles armed only with CAP or HCAP weapons. You can keep some anti-vehicle forces in reserve and only engage them when most of the enemy infantry is gone.

In my opinion there are some issues with how the system works in general. Especially when you also include supplies... as long as there is a big chunk of enemy infantry on the field there is zero reason to keep any anti-vehicle forces on the front lines as they eat way too much supplies to be useful. You always need to kill the enemy infantry with infantry specific weapons first and then you take your anti-vehicle forces from either reserves in space or rear echelon and finish off the enemy vehicle forces.

Even if the enemy don't have allot of infantry you still want to attack with infantry first, enemy vehicles with heavy weapon will destroy their own supplies long before they destroy your infantry... THEN you add your anti-vehicle weapons... after you killed any supporting infantry and their supplies. This is why extremely cheap infantry is so useful as they soak up the enemy supplies and your troops hardly anything... you could even put your troops all in support echelon so you don't use up any supplies at all and just wait for the enemy to waste all their supplies. But this is only useful if your line is infantry with light infantry weapons.

In my opinion ground combat do need something to make it way less deterministic and where it make a bit more sense from a mechanic perspective, but that is just me.

If you just ignore the mechanic and role-play it probably work well and you are willing to pay the extremely high price in supplies and resources. But when you do the math you will become a bit frustrated with how the mechanic works, at least I do.

I would like to see different intensity where a combat round can be anything from a few ours to maybe one or two whole construction cycles and some more different ways to approach invasions of either small colonies or large developed worlds with hundreds of millions or even billions of people.

I like the troop system to some degree but I think units should be building blocks and not individual equipment. Every building block should have a purpose depending on the circumstance and the scale of any type of conflict.

But this is just my wish list...

[xenoscepter]

 - How the hairy hecc do I assign units to direct support now? The "Support" checkbox is missing it seems...