Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 442022 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Gyrfalcon

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commander
  • ***
  • G
  • Posts: 331
  • Thanked: 199 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1125 on: November 07, 2017, 01:19:56 AM »
I actually sort of agree with Serger on this. While all sorts of biomes are fun and interesting, I agree that the actual fighting will tend to occur in urban and suburban locations, because that's where the valuable targets (infrastructure, resources, population) are located. And I also agree that meson cannons should really be able to just fry everything hiding out in those jungle mountains... or you can just leave them be to quietly starve to death while you fortify around the cities. They either surrender, or they have to attack your (heavily) fortified units that are guarding the actual valuable assets on planet.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1126 on: November 07, 2017, 02:07:33 AM »
I actually sort of agree with Serger on this. While all sorts of biomes are fun and interesting, I agree that the actual fighting will tend to occur in urban and suburban locations, because that's where the valuable targets (infrastructure, resources, population) are located. And I also agree that meson cannons should really be able to just fry everything hiding out in those jungle mountains...

In WW2 combat mostly happened outside of cities ( with a few notable exceptions ), and as far as I know the same has been the case for every war before or since.

Why would it be different in the future? What changed?

or you can just leave them be to quietly starve to death while you fortify around the cities. They either surrender, or they have to attack your (heavily) fortified units that are guarding the actual valuable assets on planet.

In reality it's the other way around. The cities can't survive isolated but are dependent on supply/food from the countryside. The units controlling the countryside can seize supply/food and attack routes to deny it being delivered to cities.
 

Offline serger

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 634
  • Thanked: 120 times
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1127 on: November 07, 2017, 03:08:43 AM »
Real combat (especially of XIX-XXcc) was a mass warfare. They manned millions on the field, filled the whole lines of contact with their infantry units and artillery. Even now NATO have no such numbers of combatants and barrels - and in the Middle East we can see now this drift to city-centric main combat, while rural area is filled with guerrilla skirmishes, as I stated above. In Aurora we have even smaller units then NATO have now IRL, and they have to control the whole planet, not a separate problematic region.

And, as it was stated above, there is no need in wide rural area in Aurora. You have vast energy resources with TN techs, so you can grow food in greenhouses and bacterial tanks, not in the field. You need area just to fill it with your suburban, to make your population happy on expanse.

And if you have orbital observation force and meson cannons - than no enemy troop can survive in attack at your transport routes at this planet. Those troops can make kamikaze diversions (one troop - one diversion), but no regular warfare with area control, if they have no mesons. And if they have mesons and TN radar - they can attack any target on the planet or on the orbit at any time from any location. There is no line of contact, no rear area, and no masking outside of tech-dense urban and suburban with TN techs.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1128 on: November 07, 2017, 06:23:17 AM »
In WW2 combat mostly happened outside of cities ( with a few notable exceptions ), and as far as I know the same has been the case for every war before or since.

Why would it be different in the future? What changed?

Force disparity and lack of options to hide. Most Aurora conflicts will be similar to what happens when a Great Power bullies a smaller one in war; an isolated location (the planet) beset by vastly superior numbers of enemy combatants of peer or greater technological prowess. Frankly, the outcome of the battle isn't in doubt; the only question is the cost.

And modern day societies tend to be very squeamish when it comes to civilians caught in the crossfire. For defenders this is actually a good thing; for an attacker not to come of as evil they have to be very careful in their engagements, while the defender has in theory at least a massive potential intelligence advantage in all those eyes and ears that could call in when the attacker is on the move.

In reality it's the other way around. The cities can't survive isolated but are dependent on supply/food from the countryside. The units controlling the countryside can seize supply/food and attack routes to deny it being delivered to cities.

That is an option if urban food production isn't a thing. However, that isn't really an option even when all food comes from more rural areas and the planetary population density is large enough; even outlying farms will be in the reach of city based rapid reaction forces, and getting to the next objective requires urban terrain anyway. And frankly? Cities are horrible to attack; too many angles and nearly every has a window to shoot from.

Real combat (especially of XIX-XXcc) was a mass warfare. They manned millions on the field, filled the whole lines of contact with their infantry units and artillery. Even now NATO have no such numbers of combatants and barrels - and in the Middle East we can see now this drift to city-centric main combat, while rural area is filled with guerrilla skirmishes, as I stated above. In Aurora we have even smaller units then NATO have now IRL, and they have to control the whole planet, not a separate problematic region.

The European tech advantage was so large that they managed to conquer and subjugate populations several times their own homeland's with tiny armies in comparison. The main reason you don't see that in the early 21st century is because the tech advantage is too expensive to exploit while the natives have acquired effective weaponry that's almost as good at hitting the most vulnerable sections of the conquering armies while the homefront is much more aware and much less willing to sacrifice lives on wars of conquest.

And, as it was stated above, there is no need in wide rural area in Aurora. You have vast energy resources with TN techs, so you can grow food in greenhouses and bacterial tanks, not in the field. You need area just to fill it with your suburban, to make your population happy on expanse.

Actually, energy production is a major weakspot in TN civilizations. They require so much of it it's impossible to hide, and losing it would majorly impact a TN civilization's ability to supply its cities.

And if you have orbital observation force and meson cannons - than no enemy troop can survive in attack at your transport routes at this planet. Those troops can make kamikaze diversions (one troop - one diversion), but no regular warfare with area control, if they have no mesons. And if they have mesons and TN radar - they can attack any target on the planet or on the orbit at any time from any location. There is no line of contact, no rear area, and no masking outside of tech-dense urban and suburban with TN techs.

Yeah, if there's one gun type that needs to be incapable of operating in an atmosphere it's mesons. Otherwise all conquest will be 'nuke it until everything is dead' because the locals can resist too effectively.
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1129 on: November 07, 2017, 10:02:08 AM »
Probably a controversial opinion but... The biome changes just sound like feature creep that forces players to engage in the game's fundamentally un-fun ground combat. It sounds kinda superfluous to what I view as the core game (the ship design/combat), just like the terraforming/planet changes in general.

Ground combat creates roles and needs for your ships and different priorities for your industry.  For example, armored assault ships or dropships will actually have a point if you need to do a contested orbital landing - this is in direct contrast to right now where all you actually need are commercial-grade transport barges.   The biome changes are a means of differentiating ground combats by context and so serve a purpose of deepening it by making it less strategically predictable.

Designing ships for effective orbital combat is another potential consideration.


Quote
Yeah, if there's one gun type that needs to be incapable of operating in an atmosphere it's mesons. Otherwise all conquest will be 'nuke it until everything is dead' because the locals can resist too effectively.
It's more like mesons are kinda op in general :P

a lot depends on the actual mounts and FC the GTO weapons get though. we'll see.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2017, 10:24:50 AM by TheDeadlyShoe »
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1130 on: November 07, 2017, 10:25:01 AM »
Probably a controversial opinion but... The biome changes just sound like feature creep that forces players to engage in the game's fundamentally un-fun ground combat. It sounds kinda superfluous to what I view as the core game (the ship design/combat)

You acknowledge that the problem is that ground combat isn't fun, but for some reason you don't want to see it fixed?

I think biomes could be something that ( along the other changes being made ) makes ground combat more fun and engaging which solves the root issue here. ( ground combat being un-fun ).


It's more like mesons are kinda op in general :P

I wouldn't complain if mesons were moved to a spoiler/ruins only weapon...
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1131 on: November 07, 2017, 11:01:25 AM »
I wouldn't complain if mesons were moved to a spoiler/ruins only weapon...

Maybe shift to a Starfire style system where there's a weapon that pierces shields and a weapon that pierces armor, but the one that pierces both has bigger downsides?

Though honestly I kind of feel we should wait to see the system in action before we get too worried about balance concerns. In my experience mesons are less effective than ones gut instinct indicates they should be, anyways.

Also this made me realize that microwave weapons would be an "ion cannon" sort of orbital defense; they wont destroy enemy ships on their own, but by taking out the electronics they'd limit further bombardment and therefor buy time (either for the ground forces or other, more damaging ground to orbit weapons).
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1132 on: November 07, 2017, 12:08:36 PM »
Well, weapons are generic for ground units, using the highest level researched out of the options.
 

Offline Scandinavian

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • S
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1133 on: November 07, 2017, 04:53:27 PM »
One interesting question is what is the dominant terrain type on Earth? At the moment I am leaning toward Temperate Forest
Urban.

Not because it has the largest acreage, but because that's the terrain you will predominantly be fighting in if you attempt to take control of the industrial capacity and raw materials and pacify the indigenous population. Alternatively Steppe/Plains, if you bypass the urban centers and simply starve them out.

Going by acreage the dominant (non-ocean) terrain type is probably desert. It's just that with a very few exceptions the deserts are strategically irrelevant. Also, they mostly don't have any assets that an invader would miss if they just paved them over with nukes from orbit.
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1134 on: November 07, 2017, 06:33:21 PM »
I would say temperate forest fits for earth, but otoh there's lots of volcanic activity. Many habitable worlds may not have or be currently experiencing such vulcanism and so i am not sure I would classify Earth as a 'garden' world. You could make a pretty good argument for the terrain being rough.

Maybe it should be a matrix of vulcanism, vegetation strength, environmental extremity.  In that case it would be like Rough Temperate  Forest or somesuch. 

It's hard to reconcile this system as a seperate system from what determines colony cost...

 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 719
  • Thanked: 133 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1135 on: November 07, 2017, 06:42:39 PM »
Urban.

...but because that's the terrain you will predominantly be fighting in...
This is not a guarantee.  You may be fighting over mines, which could be in any biome.  Further, the defender would obviously try to prevent an attacker from entering their cities.  The strongest anti-air and/or ground-to-orbit weapons will likely be defending the cities.  This will mean dropships and troop transports must land outside the urban areas.  This means defenders on the ground may end up fighting out in the wilderness.  You may also see an attacker try to secure mountains or hills near urban areas to station artillery on them.
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1136 on: November 07, 2017, 07:46:34 PM »
In the new ground combat mechanics the real points of conflict are really the GTO units imo.
 

Offline ChildServices

  • Hegemon
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 140
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1137 on: November 08, 2017, 12:14:18 AM »
Ground combat creates roles and needs for your ships and different priorities for your industry.  For example, armored assault ships or dropships will actually have a point if you need to do a contested orbital landing - this is in direct contrast to right now where all you actually need are commercial-grade transport barges.   The biome changes are a means of differentiating ground combats by context and so serve a purpose of deepening it by making it less strategically predictable.
You acknowledge that the problem is that ground combat isn't fun, but for some reason you don't want to see it fixed?

I think biomes could be something that ( along the other changes being made ) makes ground combat more fun and engaging which solves the root issue here. ( ground combat being un-fun ).
I think I could respond to both of these together.

First of all, so what if it creates fleet roles? Ground combat itself is still boring. In my eyes, all the biomes really do is stop me from just skipping ground combat, either in part or entirely, whenever I don't feel like justifying it, by lowering the constant viability of nuking things from orbit. The defenders advantage is only a marginal expansion in depth, for me all that does is make something boring take longer and more resources to resolve. So, as if forcing me to do something I'd rather not wasn't enough, it has to take longer as well.

Making it more fun would mean having it function and be presented the way space combat is, in another window that shows the planet's surface, with your units moving around like ships. Formations (brigades, divisons, etc) would appear on the map the way fleets do. Without actually changing ground combat itself, it's still going to be the same banality it is at present. Contrary to the prevailing view of many A4x fans: Having more numbers to keep track of doesn't fundamentally make anything more engaging.
Aurora4x Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/Q5ryqdW

Cold as steel the darkness waits, its hour will come
A cry of fear from our children, worshipping the Sun
Mother Nature's black revenge, on those who waste her life
War babies in the Garden Of Eden, she'll turn our ashes to ice
 

Offline Felixg

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • F
  • Posts: 47
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1138 on: November 08, 2017, 11:07:07 AM »
In the new ground combat mechanics the real points of conflict are really the GTO units imo.

Makes sense, and offers some cool options if Steve allows for them, having fast blockade runner style dropships to deploy forces meant to take out GTO cannons before the main invasion lands.
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1139 on: November 08, 2017, 02:24:03 PM »
I believe its more like how the only thing that really matters on a planet is the GTO units. Once htey are eliminated the planet is at the mercy of orbiting vessels.   So all goals on a planet revolve around attacking and defending the GTO units.  After all, if you wanted to wreck the industry or cities, you could just nuke them or drop rocks or whatever.

pretty much like how Hoth was lost when the shield generator was destroyed
« Last Edit: November 08, 2017, 02:42:38 PM by TheDeadlyShoe »