Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Steve Walmsley

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: November 19, 2017, 08:25:24 AM »
First screenshots of ground unit design window. This tab is for the design of individual unit classes (a single vehicle, soldier or gun emplacement). For the STO option, the mount includes the weapon, a reactor of the exact size needed for the recharge rate and a built-in beam fire control with a 4x range modifier. The cost is equal to the static platform, the weapon, the reactor and half the fire control. STO weapons have a 25% bonus to fire control range. The damage shows two numbers, which is the damage at minimum and maximum range.

The next stage (on a separate tab) is combining unit classes to create formation templates. You might have a template consisting solely of 500 Stormtroopers or you might combine different unit classes into a single template. More on that when I finish the tab.

BTW I just noticed a couple of bugs (I don't display the tracking speed of the STO unit class and the cost for the capabilities isn't in the mineral requirements). I'll fix it but can't be bothered redoing the screenshots :)

The following users thanked this post: Indefatigable, Shiwanabe, serger, jonw

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: November 06, 2017, 06:39:43 AM »
Something else that occurred to me was that I am basing the terrain on current Earth. There could be a lot of alien terrain (Giant fungus forest?) or even terrain from Earth's past.
The following users thanked this post: xhunterx

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: November 06, 2017, 03:29:32 AM »
They don't lose their fortification.
The following users thanked this post: Felixg

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« on: November 05, 2017, 01:33:12 PM »
But they can be terraformed with antigreenhouse gas:

That's a bug in VB6 Aurora that is fixed in C# Aurora. The -1000 and +100,000 are just arbitrary numbers to highlight any temperature is fine.
The following users thanked this post: serger

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes List
« on: November 05, 2017, 12:14:00 PM »
Planetary Terrain

As part of the ground combat changes, each planet will have a dominant terrain type. In many cases, for most asteroids, comets or small moons, that type will simply be Barren. Within certain environmental tolerances, other terrain types are possible.

Any system body with temperature lower than -100C or higher than 200C or with no atmosphere or atmosphere greater than 10 atm will be Barren, unless it has platelet or extreme tectonics, in which case it will be Mountain.

All other system bodies will check the following table to determine which terrain types are eligible based on the environmental conditions. One of the eligible terrain types will be selected randomly. Barren, Mountain and Rift Valley (which are base types available without any atmospheric, temperature or water requirements) will only be selected if no other terrain types are eligible. The tectonic numbers are internal to Aurora and have the following values: Dead = 1, Hot Spot = 2, Plastic = 3, Plate Tectonics = 4, Platelet Tectonic = 5, Extreme = 6.

Terraforming will change the terrain under two circumstances:
1) A planet with a base type (Barren, Mountain and Rift Valley) becomes eligible for another terrain of a similar type. Mountain can move to any other Mountain type, Rift Valley to any other Rift Valley Type and Barren to any non-Mountain, non-Rift Valley type.
2) The terrain type is no longer possible with the current environmental conditions. A new terrain type is generated with the same base type.

I am happy to add additional types or modify the environmental parameters if there is general consensus on any changes.

The fortification modifier is a modifier for the max fortification level, rather than an automatic defence increase. It means you can dig in much deeper (given sufficient time) in Mountains than you can in Steppe or Swamp. The to hit modifier is a reduction in the chance to hit in that terrain (for other ground units and any supporting ships in orbit). In effect, fortification is a benefit to the defender, while to hit is a penalty to both sides. Within the new ground combat rules, you can assign ground units 'capabilities', such as Jungle Warfare, Mountain Warfare, etc. which will double their chance to hit in those types of terrain. Ground units of species with certain types of home world may gain capabilities for free (if you are from a desert planet, you would gain Desert Warfare for free, for example). There are additional capability options to avoid penalties for ground units fighting on worlds that are outside their species tolerance for gravity, temperature and pressure.

An important factor to bear in mind is that when ships are engaging ground units with surface-to-orbit capability, the main defence of the ground unit will be its fortification level. The ship-based weapons are assumed to hit 100% of the time divided by the fortification level. On a planet with Steppe as the dominant terrain type, the maximum fortification of a static ground unit will be 6 with no penalty for the ship to hit. On a Jungle Mountain world, the maximum fortification level will be 18 for that same ground unit and any shots against it by the ships will be modified by 0.125, giving the ground unit an effective fortification level of 144. In other words, the ship in orbit is going to hit once every 144 shots. So trying to use orbital bombardment against surface to orbit units buried in jungle-covered mountains is going to be a Bad Idea. It would be far more effective to send in ground forces (which can't be hit by STO units) to dig them out. That is an extreme example, but there should be many more situations where there are some serious decisions for the attacker.

The following users thanked this post: Kytuzian, Tristitan, PartyAlias, Rye123

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 18, 2017, 12:28:36 PM »
I'd like to "+1" something that was mentioned four pages ago:

Please, please, PLEASE leave us some means of Orbit-to-Ground / Ground-to-Orbit weaponry for the "absolutely no missiles ever!" empires some of us like to play.

And for myself, contrary to what others are arguing, I want there to be some place for the "all basic infantry, all the time" ground forces that my games' Bugs equivalents are going to field.  I can accept 'Improved Personal Weapon' Infantry as representing bigger Bugs, but I'm not interested in having to pretend Super-Heavy Vehicles are giant plasma-throwing 'tanker' bugs just to prevent a few battalions of Medium Tanks wiping out 60 million Bug infantry as fast as the tanks can reload.

Ground to orbit will only be energy-based. I want to avoid any complexities around ground units with missiles. Orbit to ground energy combat will be possible using some form of 'forward air controller' against normal ground units, or normal 'naval' combat against ground units with surface-to orbit weapons that are firing at space-based targets (they are revealing their position).

Naval fire vs ground units with ground to orbit weapons will be at 100% to hit divided by fortification level (as they are firing at a specific target). Naval Fire vs 'normal' ground units will have some form of bombardment rating (the ship would act as an additional bombarding ground unit). Conversion of weapon strength to bombardment rating TBD but perhaps on a 3 damage = 1 bombardment strength, with option for much less effective fire (and potential friendly fire) if no FAC available. So 10cm laser would be equivalent to a light bombardment weapon, a 20cm laser would be slightly better than a medium bombardment weapon, 30cm would be better than heavy bombardment. Plasma Carronades would be very effective in this role. Not sure how I would handle naval ROF in this situation though. I could just ignore and have 1 naval fire support per weapon per ground combat round and assume faster firing weapons have their ROF built into the normal rating, or perhaps allow multiple shots and use the MSP option below. I just need to avoid a situation where a few energy-armed ships in orbit can wreak havoc enemy ground forces. Of course, this is only possible if the orbiting ships are not facing massed ground-based defences. Lots of balancing needed after playtest.

One other thing I am considering is to have a small breakdown chance for any ship-based weapon each time it fires (missile or energy) - maybe about 1%. This would be immediately repaired if MSP are available, but would prevent effectively endless orbital fire support.
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 17, 2017, 07:46:30 AM »
The 'fortification level' of a ground unit will act as a divisor on the chance to hit. So fortification level 3 will mean all to-hit chances against that unit are divisible by 3. This will also be true against ships attacking from orbit (more on that in a future post). Fortification level does not affect armour penetration or damage.

Any infantry or static unit will be able to fortify itself to level 3 over time without assistance. Vehicles will be able to fortify to level 2 (although this will negate their mobility bonus it would avoid any fuel use). Super-heavy Vehicles will be able to fortify to level 1.5. Aircraft will not be able to fortify.

Combat Engineers will be able to increase the fortification level of other units over time. Up to level 3 for vehicles and up to level 5 for infantry & static. (I may add some additional fortification bonuses for infantry/static depending on terrain). Combat Engineers will be also able to reduce hostile fortification levels over time.

If a unit chooses to attack, it will lose any fortification bonus. However, you will be able to attack with selected units and leave others in place.

More details later on how long it takes to fortify.
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 17, 2017, 07:35:37 AM »
Have to agree with this when it comes to logistics / supplies / fuel and weapons/deigns or hangars for ground combat.

It would make sense to use similar compatible supplies (MSP) and similar sources of energy (Sorium based fuel for vehicles).

It would make sense to use similar weapons and powerplants for large vehicles, airplanes or smaller space ships (fighters), maybe even sharing the same designer?

It would make sense to have shared hangars for space or ground based fighters that can be used by either of them ( Both space based and ground based ), and some shared capability and multirole where Space Carrier Fighters have an optional "atmospheric flight" component allowing them to take part in air combat or ground support on planets with an atmosphere.

Agree that MSP (for all units) and Sorium (for vehicles/aircraft) make sense for ground units rather than a separate resource type . I'll probably have logistic units 'carry' supplies that can be used by ground units, or have some inherent capability. This would be at a low level normally but much higher during combat. Vehicles without fuel would act only on defence and without any mobility bonus.

The issue with having much smaller versions of ship components is that I would have to make those available for ships too. Having much smaller versions of weapons could lead to some balance issues, particularly around point defence and dealing with ultra-short ranges. Plus this isn't really very different than PDCs. I want ground combat to be more detailed than it is now, but not to the extent of creating space-based warfare on the ground.

The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 15, 2017, 01:09:58 PM »
I am working on costs and sizes. The basic principle is a base size for the unit type, plus a base size for each component type (on the assumption that adding larger weapons means a larger vehicle / static mount). The size is then modified by the armour to create a cost. All this is compared to a infantry unit with 1000 men using basic weapons for comparison

For example, I have the following base sizes:
Infantry 0
Static 2
Vehicle 6
Super-heavy Vehicle 18
Aircraft 12

Weapon Sizes (at the moment) are as follows

Personal Weapon 1 (AP 0.5)
Improved PW 1.25 (AP 1)
Machine Gun 3
Heavy MG   5
Light AT 4
Medium AT 8
Heavy AT 12
Super-heavy AT   18
Light Bombardment 5
Med Bombardment 10
Heavy Bombardment 15

So if we have a 'Medium Tank' with Medium AT and MG, plus armour strength 4. That is a total size of 17 (or about 59 vehicles for the same size as a 1000 man unit). Cost is Size x Armour, which would be 68. So for the same cost as 1000 men with basic weapons, you could have 15 medium tanks.

A 'Heavy Tank' with Heavy AT and HMG and armour strength 6 would be size 23 and cost 138. Compared to the 1000 man unit, you could have 44 tanks in terms of size and 7 in terms of cost. Cost & Size are both relevant because size is a factor in terms of troop lift capacity, while cost is an economic factor.

This feels OK. The issue is that static, non-armoured weapons are very cheap compared to tanks (although fine in terms of size). I am planning to make static weapons much less useful when attacking (perhaps shots / 3) and they are more easily destroyed so this may be fine anyway. However, I wouldn't mind some comparison with real world in terms of cost.

BTW, if we take the above Medium and Heavy Tank designs and compare to an infantry unit with 1000 troopers armed with Personal Weapons. Assuming 100% hit rate, a Medium Tank formation of 60 vehicles would kill 420 infantry and lose 3 tanks. The heavy tank formation of 45 vehicles would kill 315 infantry and lose 1 tank. If we assume the infantry are armed with the Improved Personal Weapon, the tank losses change to 8 and 4 respectively. If the tank formations fought each other, The Medium tanks would kill 27 heavy tanks and lose 45 of their own tanks. So Medium is better for flexibility but Heavy better vs other tanks.

If the Heavy Tank was changed to a 'Tank Destroyer' configuration with double Heavy AT and no MG, it would wipe out the Medium Tank formation but only kill 90 infantry.

There will be some other factors involved though. Base to hit chance will be far, far lower given the time increment for ground combat and vehicles will be harder to hit than static or infantry units (not decided yet exactly how the 'mobility' factor will be used). Conversely, infantry on defence can be fortified, making them harder to hit too.

I think the model so far has some interesting decisions in terms of order of battle and attack/defence will be very different in terms of unit capability.

I haven't added aircraft weapons yet but will get to it.
The following users thanked this post: 83athom

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 15, 2017, 05:37:31 AM »
I notice infantry at 1 HP. I hope this doesn't translate into a loss of the staying power of infantry units, which should exceed that of other unit types. Infantry has the capability to rapidly dig in and seek cover that other unit types lack and I hope that capability to endure gets reflected.

I'm not quite sure what a static unit is now, given what others are suggesting. I thought it was supposed to be the equivalent of a base or fortress in replacing PDCs.

More generally, I hope we aren't losing sight of what different unit types are supposed to do: infantry holds ground against other infantry at something like a 1:3 ratio, armor helps infantry advance against other infantry and counteracts enemy armor, air power somewhat reduces infantry capability and negates armor in the absence of countermeasures like opposing air power. I think anti-space units should be dedicated to the task and not something the infantry--or even armor/vehicles--totes around; we're talking ground-to-orbit weaponry here. I hope these effects result from the new mechanics.

Another concern I have: I hope the enhanced speed of C# Aurora isn't going to be negated by the addition of tons of new calculations as the program tries to manage x number of complex planetary combats.

There will be a lot more infantry units in a formation than an equivalent vehicle formation so total HP may be higher. Also, Infantry units can be fortified, which makes them harder to hit.

Static is a weapon that is not mounted on a vehicle. Towed anti-tank or towed artillery for example.

The following users thanked this post: obsidian_green

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 14, 2017, 11:12:08 AM »
An important consideration to make;

What will be the planetary impact of ground combat weapon systems? Orbital bombardment causes a lot of collateral damage in civilian casualties, destroyed facilities, dust and radiation. The effects of a protracted, high intensity campaign should probably not be underestimated. Scientists have actually been able to trace major plagues and the like in the glacial record because the loss of population affected the way and extent humanity utilized the ground, as well as major eruption events with volcanoes.

While the damage at a low TN tech level should probably not be too bad, this can be very different at the higher tech levels.

Of course, one of the things that may make you want to create ground combat units would be the limited damage you could do to a planet in comparison to a thorough orbital bombardment to destroy enemy units.

EDIT: Please don't strip all artillery, anti air and anti tank capacity from infantry units. Aside from flavour, while modern day man portable weapons are not nearly as effective as vehicle mounted ones, they are still a potent weapon in the right circumstances.

My plan is to leave orbital area bombardment by missiles vs ground units as it is now. For precision, energy-based orbital fire support, the ground units will require some equivalent of a forward air controller to direct fire. I may also do the same for bombardment units (they will be assigned to a forward controller). Essentially, each unit with bombardment capability not in a front-line position will be assigned to a front-line unit that contains a specialised fire-direction unit.

At the moment, I am leaning toward mixed unit types in formations rather than having a single unit type. Units will be designed separately to formations, much as you create components for ships. So you could design a battalion that is mainly infantry based, but with some integral bombardment, anti-tank capability and fire-direction capabilities.

I have changed my original plans so there are now five basic unit types: Infantry, Static, Vehicle, Super-Heavy Vehicle and Aircraft. You can develop armour for each type separately except static, although that can be fortified (armour will affect chance of penetration while fortification will affect chance to hit). Some types can have better armour than others.

Weapons are developed separately and can be assigned to different types of units, although there are some restrictions. For example, an infantry unit can only have light or medium bombardment and anti-vehicle weapons, while super-heavy anti-vehicle weapons (and probably surface to orbit weapons) can only be mounted in static units or super-heavy vehicle units. Due to the base type HP and potential armour, the static weapons would be much easier to destroy but also cheaper.

Weapons have three characteristics:
1) Armour-piercing: Affects the chance to penetrate the armour of the target.
2) Damage: Affects the chance of destroying the target
3) Shots: Amount of fire in one combat round. This is high for machine-gun equivalents to simulate rate of fire and for bombardment weapons to simulate the chance to damage multiple targets.

Infantry have 1 HP, Static 2 HP, Aircraft 3 HP, Vehicle 6 HP and Super-heavy Vehicle 15 HP (might be more for this one). HP (and armour) will be modified by the armour tech of the race in question.

Some sample weapons (as they currently stand)
Personal Infantry Weapon: AP 0 DAM 1 SHOTS 1
Crew-served automatic anti-personnel weapon. AP 1 DAM 1 SHOTS 6
Crew-served heavy automatic anti-personnel weapon. AP 2 DAM 1 SHOTS 6
Light anti vehicle weapon: AP 2 DAM 6 SHOT 1
Medium anti vehicle weapon: AP 4 DAM 6 SHOT 1
Heavy anti vehicle weapon: AP 6 DAM 6 SHOT 1
Super-heavy anti vehicle weapon: AP 9 DAM 9 SHOT 1
Light bombardment Weapon AP 0, DAM 1, SHOTS 3
Medium bombardment Weapon AP 1, DAM 3, SHOTS 3
Heavy bombardment Weapon AP 2, DAM 6, SHOTS 3
Super-heavy bombardment Weapon AP 3, DAM 9, SHOTS 3
Light Anti-Air Weapons: AP 1 DAM 2, SHOT 1
Medium Anti-Air Weapons: AP 2, DAM 3 SHOT 1
(Haven't done air-to-ground yet)

Base AP and Damage rating will be modified by the weapon capability of the race designing the unit. The highest level tech is determined from any of Laser Focal Size, Railgun Type, Meson Focal Size, Particle Beam Strength or Cannonade Calibre. That TL is then matched to the equivalent Armour tech level and the Armour Strength is used as the weapon strength. For example, a race with Laser Focal Size 15cm has the third level of weapon tech. So the weapon multiplier is 8, because that is the value of the third level of armour tech. Using this method allows all races with similar levels of weapon tech to be equivalent in ground combat, removes any complications around converting different weapon types to ground combat and ensures similar levels of weapon and armour tech are equivalent.

Some weapons have other characteristics, such as bombardment may engage from a support position, while anti-air can engage aircraft. I will add some minimal ability for some other weapons to attempt aircraft interception at low chance to hit.

Armour piercing will be based on a formula that takes (AP / Armour) ^ 2 as the basis for the percentage chance to penetrate. If armour is penetrated, the chance to kill a unit will be based on Damage / HP, in the same way a ship component.

The major factors I need to decide are base unit and weapon sizes plus the base chance to hit and how much that is affected by movement (i.e. vehicle vs static) and by fortifications. Also I think I am going to scrap the concept of the Advance position and instead have a chance that formations in support or rear echelon positions will be attacked based on the recent balance of damage between the two sides. Less complex but similar outcome.

More updates as I make progress :)
The following users thanked this post: byron, DIT_grue

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 14, 2017, 08:21:06 AM »
I've not able to make any progress in the last week or two due to other commitments but hope to get some work done this weekend.

Thanks for the feedback on my overview. I like the concept of static units as an additional type, which allows me to restrict infantry to more 'normal' weapons. Static types could be used for artillery, anti-tank, CIWS, anti-ship, etc., although these weapons could also be mounted on vehicles. I will also change 'combat walkers' to 'super-heavy vehicles'. These can be renamed a Titans or AT-AT, etc. at player discretion, but also allows more immersion for players who want huge, armoured tanks instead.

I have done some calculations on the unit to unit combat and I think it will be easier a single rate of fire for all units and run a ground combat phase perhaps once per minute. Those formations with larger weapons will also have fewer units, which achieves the goal of making them less suitable to engage formations with lots of units (infantry for example). I will also change weapon types to have 'armour-piercing' and damage ratings. So bombardment weapons would generally have low AP and high damage, infantry weapons would generally be low AP and low damage (but lots of them) while anti-vehicle would be high AP and high damage. There will be varieties of each type though.

I am still playing around with concepts at this stage though and none of this is coded yet.
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 02, 2017, 05:19:24 PM »
You mention terrain-specific modifiers. How will terrain be handled? Will the planet be assigned a single terrain type, or be divided into zones based on planet type, surface water percentage, etc?

Will there be a representation of territory controlled by each side, perhaps in simple percentages? Will that have an impact on enemy populations, factories, mines, stockpiles, etc? If so, will there be a speed/mobility stat for the various unit types? This paragraph may add a bit too much complexity, though.

For the moment, I am assuming a dominant terrain type for the whole planet, although this may be a combination of terrain (mountainous-jungle for example). I haven't decided exactly how to do this yet though. Tectonics and Age will drive some form of mountainous rating, hydrosphere extent will be used for water, and I will come up with some form of terrain based on environmental conditions (forest, jungle, tundra, etc.). Temperature will be another factor and perhaps radiation.

Mobility/speed will play a part in three ways. Chance to hit, length of time in an advance positions to achieve a  breakthrough and suitability for terrain (vehicles will not be less useful in jungle for example). Details TBD.

I am aiming for variety and a real flavour of combined arms but I don't want to get involved in percentages of territory or different areas of terrain. The Advance position and breakthrough mechanics are being used as a substitute for actual movement.
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue

C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« on: October 02, 2017, 10:11:38 AM »
A high level update on the new ground combat system. This isn't really about the detail, as I am still sorting that out, but more about some of the overall concepts.

My direction at the moment is to have a component system for ground unit design (which will replace all existing units including Titans). There are four base unit types (Infantry, Vehicle, Combat Walker, Aircraft), each of which has several sub-types based on the level of armour. 'Combat Walker' in this context is down to player interpretation. Could be a WH40K Titan or a Star Wars AT-AT, etc.). At the moment, my list comprises:

Unarmoured Infantry - ARM 0
Light Infantry - ARM 1
Powered Infantry - ARM 2
Heavy Powered Infantry - ARM 3
Unarmoured Vehicle - ARM 1
Light Vehicle - ARM 2
Medium Vehicle - ARM 4
Heavy Vehicle - ARM 6
Light Combat Walker - ARM 3
Medium Combat Walker - ARM 6
Heavy Combat Walker - ARM 9
Super-Heavy Combat Walker - ARM 12
Unarmoured Aircraft - ARM 1
Light Aircraft - ARM 2
Medium Aircraft - ARM 3

The armour strength (ARM) is a baseline, which is modified by the best available racial armour tech. So, an advanced civilisation may have 'light' vehicles with better armour than the 'medium' or even 'heavy' vehicles of a lower tech civilisation.

Each base type has 1-3 component slots (Infantry 1, Vehicles & Aircraft 2, Walkers 3). This components can be combat-related or support-related. This list (so far) includes:

Light Anti-Personnel
Medium Anti-Personnel
Heavy Anti-Personnel
Light Anti Vehicle
Medium Anti Vehicle
Heavy Anti Vehicle
Super Heavy Anti Vehicle
Light Bombardment
Medium Bombardment
Heavy Bombardment
Light Anti-Air
Medium Anti-Air
Surface to Orbit (Variety of weapons)
Brigade HQ
Division HQ
Combat Engineer
Forced Labour
Orbital Fire Support Controller

So for example, you could create a 'Medium Tank' using a Medium Vehicle with Medium Anti Vehicle and Medium Anti-Personnel. Or a 'Tank Destroyer' by going heavy armour and double anti-vehicle, etc.. The non-combat related functions will function in a similar way to now. Logistics will be a ground unit that is slowly consumed over time by other friendly units, acting as a form of ground unit supply. Orbital Fire Support Controller will be able to direct the fire of ships in orbit to support ground forces.

The light, medium, heavy concepts for weapons are based on rate of fire and armour penetration. So a light weapon will fire more often and therefore engage more targets, while a heavier weapon will fire more slowly but have a higher chance of destroying the target. Essentially, you will need light weapons against numerous, lightly armoured targets and heavy weapons against armoured opponents. Penetration and rate of fire will also be affected by base racial technology in weapons and capacitor recharge rates. I might combine some of the anti-personnel and anti-vehicle descriptions as (for example) heavy anti-personnel and light anti-vehicle may not be that different.

Ground combat will now take place in the same time frame as ship combat, with each unit firing at specified intervals (except that time won't slow for ground combat - it will instead run multiple cycles depending on turn length). It will still take a while for ground combat though as hit chances will be very low.

Ground unit design will have an individual unit type and a formation type. For example, you might design an 'Armoured Battalion' formation with the unit type as the 'Panther Tank'. There will be a set number of units within a formation and they will fire and take damage individually. So you may start with 50 Panther Tanks in each Armoured Battalion but after combat, some will be damaged and some destroyed. These can be repaired or replaced. Each unit will have a size, so the size of a formation will be number of units x unit size. I haven't decided yet whether to allow units of any size or have a 'battalion size' and have a number of units that will fit within that size. In the case of the former, then Brigade HQs would have a total command size, rather than commanding a set number of units. This would also allow minor units, such as a mortar company (light infantry - light bombardment) held at Brigade level.

Within combat, each formation can be placed in one of four positions. Advance, Front-line, Support or Rear Echelon (names might changes). The default position for any formation is Front-line. Front-line formations will engage in direct combat and can be given orders regarding the type of enemy unit to target (as combat takes place, information will be provided about the base types of enemy units engaged).

A number of formations not exceeding the number of front lines units can be placed in the Support position. This would typically be bombardment or headquarters units, or a resting combat formation. Any ground-based unit (infantry, vehicle, combat walker) in the support position can use its bombardment strength against enemy units in the opposing front-line position or may be allocated to counter-battery fire against enemy units bombarding from a support position.

A number of formations not exceeding the number of support units can be placed in the Rear Echelon position. This would typically be aircraft, ground-to-orbit, logistics, repair or replacement units. Any aircraft in any position can target any enemy position, although it can be engaged by each position which it attacks or passes over. So an aircraft attacking the support units of an enemy can be engaged by anti-air units in the front-line or support positions I will probably make this any anti-air unit in the same hierarchy (divisional or brigade).

A number of Vehicle or Combat Walker formations may be assigned to the Advance position. This cannot exceed the number of front-line units. These formations are attempting to break through the enemy front-line formations. If they can maintain their advance position for a certain amount of time (TBD) without being forced to withdraw (withdrawal will be based on casualties and formation morale), they will be considered to have broken through the enemy lines and will be able to either attack support formations directly, or attack front-line formations with double strength (flanking them). After another specified amount of time (TBD), they can also choose to attack rear echelon units directly, or support units / front-line units at double strength. Any unit in an advance position will be identified by name and type to the enemy and can be attacked specifically (as opposed to just targeting a position).

Infantry formations can be fortified. This can done to a minimal level by the formation itself, given sufficient time, or enhanced further by combat engineer units. This will greatly improve the formation's resistance to damage.

CIWS and Ground to Orbit units will be based on existing naval weapons, along with sufficient costs for reactors, fire control, etc.. They will not be able to attack in ground combat but will defend based on their base unit type.

In addition to the components, units will also have abilities that modify their cost and their combat strength in different circumstances. This will include boarding combat, extreme temperature combat, mountainous terrain, ocean terrain, etc.

Garrison Strength will be heavily based on the number of units in a formation, so a light infantry formation, will be a more effective garrison unit than a heavy armour formation, despite being considerably cheaper.

The above is an outline of where I am heading and will probably change a little once I get into the detailed coding. At the moment, I am starting on a unit / formation design window. After that is complete, I will look at the combat mechanics.
The following users thanked this post: byron, Person012345, firsal, mtm84, 83athom, DIT_grue

C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes List
« on: September 23, 2017, 05:29:39 AM »
Logistics and Ground Combat Research

Due to the increase in Logistics techs for C# Aurora and the planned revamp of ground combat design, the Logistics / Ground Combat research field will be split into two separate fields. There are now nine research fields in total.
The following users thanked this post: MagusXIX, NihilRex, DIT_grue, misora, Tristitan, SimonS3

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20