Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441920 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1320 on: January 09, 2018, 07:27:18 AM »
I think we need a way to have the ground combat module work for all ground targets (including atmospheric fighters).  In real life, practically every fighter can carry every type of ordnance.  The F18 Hornet can carry dumb bombs, GPS-guided bombs, laser guided bombs, unguided rockets, multiple kinds of air-to-air missiles, multiple kinds of anti-tank missiles, multiple kinds of anti-ship missiles, gun pods of varying calibers, extra fuel tanks, and ECM pods.  And these are all attached shortly before take-off.  You don't have to buy totally separate plane if you want to change from dropping bombs to shooting rockets. 

I think instead, we should have one ground combat module that, when the fighter is launched from the mothership, must be set as to what kind of weapon it will carry.  I would give fighters a higher chance to target their preferred target type as well.  As a trade-off I would require the fighters to return to their carrier and rearm, draining MSP (or a new kind of supply, called "Conventional Ordnance" or something) from the carrier.

I prefer the dedicated modules for a couple of reasons. Partially because I am aiming for a more WW2 / WH40k feel to ground combat, but mainly for consistency. If the fighters can have multi-purpose modules, why can't the ground units? Think of this of more like F-15 vs A-10 vs SU-25, etc..

 

The_frog

  • Guest
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1321 on: January 09, 2018, 07:48:34 AM »
Quote
Open to suggestion about a mechanic where coming out to attack has a useful advantage in certain situations.

I have been reading up on this idea and I can see some similarities between a sally action and a boarding action.  (speed and morale)

There are a few scenarios in which a sally action can prove beneficial:

-During the initial stages of an invasion in which the attacker has not had the opportunity to dig in: combat has not yet become a siege but the defending party could initiate a sally action to disrupt enemy actions, delaying opponents in order to give the defenders more time to dig themselves in.  Could be interesting if a planet has to prepare its defenses from a surprise attack.  Like with effort to set up the Atlantic Wall, fortifying a planet should be a timely and costly affair.  That said, digging out forces from a fortified position requires the attacker to have a larger army. 

-When the invasion force has landed and actually managed to surrounded the defending party, sally actions can be used to achieve a few other objectives as well.  One of them is sabotage.  Due to the abstract nature of the game a sally action can mean a great many things.  Elite troops might even have technology capable of entering the enemy camps undetected through a secret gate, a tunnel system or even teleportation.  From my standpoint I do not find it impossible for the defenders to be able to reach the attackers siege equipment or a forward command post.  The overall damage of a sally action might by comparatively minor but when successful should provide a proportionally large hit on enemy morale.  Another reason to sally forth is to act as a distraction for allied forces; a costly affair for the defenders but when the defenders have allies outside a besieged strongpoint, drawing in attacker could give their allies the opportunity to launch an attack against the attacker's flank or rear.

-Another scenario consists of two 'equal' forces.  Each party has managed to dig themselves in and neither party has the strength to dislodge the other from their respective fortifications.  the role of defender and attacker switches constantly.  Think WW I trenchwarfare.  Sally action in this situation can range from sabotage misssons, all the way up to mass charges across open grounds.  Sabotage missions deal little damage, but affect morale, while charges provides a change to break through. , but the attacker risks losing many troops in the process, while the defenders risk a breakdown of moral; their troops panicing and abandoning their defences.

It might also be an idea to add special strategic actions to commanders, granting benefits to forces with experienced commanders. 

I have to saw that I like the changes to the army structure and I wonder if a similar abstract system can be implemented on planets: depending on the planet's size and available resources you build a number of nameable slots, which you can fill with structures like factories or farms.  Perhaps with enough time, resources and technology you can keep on building, increasing the size of a planet, changing it into a superstructure.  I imagine an empire stripping entire systems to expand their home planet.
 

Offline Dungeonfrog

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • D
  • Posts: 1
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1322 on: January 09, 2018, 07:53:03 AM »
My session ended while I was typing apparantly.  Here's the fixed verison.

Quote
Open to suggestion about a mechanic where coming out to attack has a useful advantage in certain situations.

I have been reading up on this idea and I can see some similarities between a sally action and a boarding action. 

There are a few scenarios in which a sally action can prove beneficial:

-During the initial stages of an invasion in which the attacker has not had the opportunity to dig in: combat has not yet become a siege but the defending party could initiate a sally action to disrupt enemy actions, delaying opponents in order to give the defenders more time to dig themselves in.  Could be interesting if a planet has to prepare its defenses from a surprise attack.  Like with effort to set up the Atlantic Wall, fortifying a planet should be a timely and costly affair.  That said, digging out forces from a fortified position requires the attacker to have a larger army. 

-When the invasion force has landed and actually managed to surround the defending party, sally actions can be used to achieve a few other objectives as well.  One of them is sabotage.  Due to the abstract nature of the game a sally action can mean a great many things.  Elite troops might even have technology capable of entering the enemy camps undetected through a secret gate, a tunnel system or even teleportation.  From my standpoint I do not find it impossible for the defenders to be able to reach the attackers siege equipment or a forward command post.  The overall damage of a sally action might by comparatively minor but when successful should provide a proportionally large hit on enemy morale.  Another reason to sally forth is to act as a distraction for allied forces; a costly affair for the defenders but when the defenders have allies outside a besieged strongpoint, drawing in attacker could give their allies the opportunity to launch an attack against the attacker's flank or rear.

-Another scenario consists of two 'equal' forces.  Each party has managed to dig themselves in and neither party has the strength to dislodge the other from their respective fortifications.  The role of defender and attacker switches constantly.  Think WW I trench warfare.  Sally action in this situation can range from sabotage missions, all the way up to mass charges across open grounds.  Sabotage missions deal little damage, but affect morale, while charges provides a change to break through. , but the attacker risks losing many troops in the process, while the defenders risk a breakdown of moral; their troops panicking and abandoning their defenses.

It might also be an idea to add special strategic actions to commanders, granting benefits to forces with experienced commanders. 

I have to say that I like the changes to the army structure and I wonder if a similar abstract system can be implemented on planets: depending on the planet's size and available resources you build a number of nameable slots, which you can fill with structures like factories or farms.  Perhaps with enough time, resources and technology you can keep on building, increasing the size of a planet, changing it into a superstructure.  I imagine an empire stripping entire systems to expand their home planet.
 

Offline Scandinavian

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • S
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1323 on: January 09, 2018, 08:06:16 AM »
The issue with the MSP stockpile concept is getting the MSP to the planet. For cargo, colonists and troops, you need time to unload. I haven't decided whether to extend this to maintenance yet. Even so, it doesn't seem realistic to instantly dump a large stockpile of maintenance during an invasion, which is then impervious to hostile attack.
Maxim 11: Everything is air-droppable at least once.

Less flippantly, it seems more reasonable to have logistics units provide a certain supply point throughput and storage. So a logistics unit might be able to shift up to 20 MSP per day (either between the planetary stockpile and the logistics unit or from the logistics unit to maintained formations, or some combination), and store up to 150 MSP (roughly two weeks' worth of steady-state throughput).

This way, an invasion force would have to deploy logistics units to carry the initial batch of MSPs and to distribute supplies, but as soon as a landing pad or starport could be established (or captured), you could start bringing in supplies by conventional means (though you may of course want to still use logistics units in order to avail yourself of drop pods, if your supply ships face harsh STO fire).

MSP stockpiles outside starports/landing pads or logistics units should of course be subject to capture just like facilities (while logistics units would protect the MSPs they store).
 
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1324 on: January 09, 2018, 09:29:42 AM »
The issue with the MSP stockpile concept is getting the MSP to the planet. For cargo, colonists and troops, you need time to unload. I haven't decided whether to extend this to maintenance yet. Even so, it doesn't seem realistic to instantly dump a large stockpile of maintenance during an invasion, which is then impervious to hostile attack. The logistics units represent the challenge of establishing the required logistical support and the requirement to defend that logistic support, plus they create a significant decision regarding the division of transport lift between combat and logistical formations.

1) Yes, Maintenance Supply Points should absolutely be subject to load/unload times. Shuttle Bay systems should probably be enough to cover how that happens.

2) This then comes down to how detailed you want the supply system to be. Do you want 'there has to be a source of supplies on planet,' 'supplies trickle down' or something in between?

I can understand not wanting to say 'dump some MSP, problem solved.' It's boring and gives attackers an advantage they probably should not have in ease of supply.

So I propose the following; all formations require Logistics units in their on planet command structure to function; Logistics Units store some amount of MSP; Logistics Units may have an upper limit to how many MSP they can move per ground combat round to units, lack of supply causes units to forfeit their shots; Logistics Units certainly have an upper limit to how many MSPs they can draw from an MSP stockpile in a ground combat round; there is an order for ships that is 'Supply Ground Forces', this tells ships/fighters to hang around in orbit/land and permit Logistics Units to draw from them as if they were an MSP stockpile; for orbital ships they cannot move more MSP then their shuttle bays allow.

Also; formations with Logistics units should be Support/Rear Echelon only but weighted to be more likely to be attacked in case of a breakthrough in the lines. They are after all unarmed, often thin skinned and close to the front, which makes them excellent targets.
 
The following users thanked this post: Scandinavian, DIT_grue

Offline King-Salomon

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 153
  • Thanked: 38 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1325 on: January 09, 2018, 10:44:48 AM »
The issue with the MSP stockpile concept is getting the MSP to the planet. For cargo, colonists and troops, you need time to unload. I haven't decided whether to extend this to maintenance yet. Even so, it doesn't seem realistic to instantly dump a large stockpile of maintenance during an invasion, which is then impervious to hostile attack. The logistics units represent the challenge of establishing the required logistical support and the requirement to defend that logistic support, plus they create a significant decision regarding the division of transport lift between combat and logistical formations.

I like the logistic support units - what I don't like is that they would be "consumed" -.- other than that the system would be great...

why not use something like this:

- Units have MSP needs (like ships) in combat and a small stockpile (more if designed with more), logistic troops have a larger special equipment with larger stockpile (unit design)
- after each combat phase, units in combat get there MSP reduced, logistic units have automated order (to reduce micromanagement) to restock the units if they have enough supply themself AND one unit can only resupply X units or X# of MSP max
- if the MSP of a supply unit is empty, they are useless but still in existence, can die, have to be transported etc but can restock their supply at a place with MSP stored for them (or after the planet is conquered from the new stockpile)


so a logistic supply unit would be like some kind of "tanker or supply ship" but for ground units - but basicly the same system as with ships with an automated resupply order

Problem: the whole MSP for each unit would have to be protocoled somewhere - with so many new ground units etc I am not sure if all the new data would kill the better performance from C#

PS: also MSP loading/unloading should need time, it's always better to use the same "logical system" as much as possible

« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 10:48:28 AM by King-Salomon »
 
The following users thanked this post: Scandinavian, Barkhorn, DIT_grue

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 719
  • Thanked: 133 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1326 on: January 09, 2018, 11:50:18 AM »
Barkhorn, There is a difference between putting two 250kg iron bombs that are released by pulling a switch with no targeting, and a guided missile that the onboard computer aims for the pilot and that has a CEP of 3 meters. I think my favourite option would be that the ground attack module starts as fairly big one and then gets smaller with tech - improved miniaturization and more destructive warheads and so on. This would encourage specialized fighters in early game while allowing efficient multi-role fighters later on. That already kinda happens with ships - at TL0-3 it is very difficult to design effective multipurpose ships but from TL4 onwards it becomes quite possible.
There really isn't much difference from the pilot's perspective.   The targeting software is on the weapon itself, not the aircraft.  A laser-guided bomb requires no extra equipment on the aircraft; the laser can be pointed by an observer on the ground or another plane.  Further, even in cases where the software IS on the plane, what difference does it make?  All modern aircraft have fully-programmable multi-function displays.  If I new weapon gets invented that needs to use the plane's computer, you just need to install the software.  You don't have to buy a whole new plane.

We already have multi-roles in real life.  It's completely unbelievable to me that we would lose that capability.  Watch some gameplay footage of DCS, you'll see that even aircraft from the 70's and 80's could carry all manner of guided and unguided weaponry.

I prefer the dedicated modules for a couple of reasons. Partially because I am aiming for a more WW2 / WH40k feel to ground combat, but mainly for consistency. If the fighters can have multi-purpose modules, why can't the ground units? Think of this of more like F-15 vs A-10 vs SU-25, etc..
The F15 can carry bombs and ATGM's, and the A-10 can carry air-to-air missiles.  Sure, the A-10 is better at ground attack and the F15 is better at air-to-air, but it's not like there's no overlap at all.

Even WW2-era fighters could carry bombs.  As I said before, while the P51D was designed to escort bombers at high altitude, it was still able to carry 1000lbs of bombs.  The Mosquito might be an even better example.  It had nose-mounted 20mm cannons for air-to-air work, and could carry bombs, rockets, or even a torpedo.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 12:11:41 PM by Barkhorn »
 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1327 on: January 09, 2018, 02:53:13 PM »
The Mosquito might be an even better example.  It had nose-mounted 20mm cannons for air-to-air work, and could carry bombs, rockets, or even a torpedo.

The Mossie was heavily modified to get into that state,  it had been converted to what would now be a strike aircraft at that stage, it's original design was an unarmed light bomber, and the Photo Reconnaissance, Light Bomber, Strike, and Night Fighter variants were all modified enough to fulfil their specific roles and were built into the different types from construction, though in 1940-43 by necessity there was a lot of using aircraft for not their intended purpose by the RAF,  they had no other option.

Sorry if it seems I'm nitpicking but I'll take any opportunity to bang on about the wooden wonder!
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 02:54:51 PM by boggo2300 »
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1328 on: January 09, 2018, 03:49:33 PM »
My opposition to fighters needing dedicated space or ground weapons is a gameplay one; no one is ever going to equip both, so you'd have fighters being either space fighters or ground fighters. Which is fine, but at that point you might as well just make them a ground unit.

I like the idea of fighters being able to fight both in space and on the ground because it makes an interesting new role for them.
 

Offline Scandinavian

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • S
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1329 on: January 09, 2018, 06:26:22 PM »
My opposition to fighters needing dedicated space or ground weapons is a gameplay one; no one is ever going to equip both,
I would question that assumption. It depends on the size and cost of the ground attack module, of course, and how the space combat capabilities of the fighter are used (or not) in ground combat. But if it basically is an additional fire control and the damage and enemy to-hit chance are determined by the weapon system and speed, then adding a space-based fire control to all the ground attack fighters becomes a relatively cheap way to boost the fleet screen around a planet, and adding a ground attack fire control to space control fighters becomes a cheap way to boost the ground force component a base strike task force.

Multirole combat aircraft will always be situational weapons at best; the contemporary tendency toward all-in-one designs owes more to inter-service politics than to it being a sensible design paradigm.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 719
  • Thanked: 133 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1330 on: January 09, 2018, 07:20:14 PM »
If C# Aurora really does run 1000x faster than VB6 Aurora, then we'll see players building some absolutely gargantuan empires.  If you're using carriers, you'll be building tens of thousands of fighters.  At those numbers, it starts looking more attractive from a logistics standpoint to go with multi-roles, even if those fighters are sub-optimal at both anti-space and anti-ground operations.

How I would do it is I would have ~3 sizes of ground combat module, representing different size ordnance hardpoints/bomb-bays.  The smallest would be for light weapons, the largest would be for heavy weapons.  This way you could have a primarily anti-space fighter that also carries the smallest ground combat module so it can be pressed into close-air-support service.  Or you could have a primarily anti-ground fighter with a couple of the heavy ground combat modules and a gauss cannon.  This would be meant primarily for close-air-support, but could at least shoot back if it got intercepted.
 

Offline JacenHan

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 454
  • Thanked: 115 times
  • Discord Username: Jacenhan
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1331 on: January 09, 2018, 09:12:12 PM »
Speaking of having tons of fighters, I can't remember anything about how fighters will work with the new naval organization system. Have there been any changes to make fighter management simpler, or is it pretty much the same?
 

Offline MarcAFK

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2005
  • Thanked: 134 times
  • ...it's so simple an idiot could have devised it..
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1332 on: January 11, 2018, 06:32:14 AM »
Of course there should still be dedicated single role aircraft. They tried to make the F35 as multirole as possible and look how that turned out.
" Why is this godforsaken hellhole worth dying for? "
". . .  We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like.  But we can assume this.  They stand for everything we don't stand for.  Also they told me you guys look like dorks. "
"Stop exploding, you cowards.  "
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 719
  • Thanked: 133 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1333 on: January 11, 2018, 11:21:31 AM »
The failings of one multi-role do not disprove the utility of all multi-roles.

The F18 is a very successful multi-role.

And my idea does not preclude single role fighters either.  There's nothing stopping you from building a "fighter" like the Ju87 Stuka.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1334 on: January 11, 2018, 12:46:10 PM »
In reality the reason for why you make something a jack of all trades but master of none are usually economics. If you specialize everything you might end up in a situation where a large part of your resources are completely useless or in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are also the thing about good enough.

In the game and especially in the new C# version multi-role ships and other things seem to have improved allot due to most things being based on more sensible logarithmic scales rather than linear scales. This aside having a decent fighting platform today might be a thousand times more important than a perfect platform tomorrow.

This does not mean that specialized platforms, be it aircraft, vehicles or ships, is not important as well. In most cases you will want to use both kinds in a decent mix. Ships in general tend to be way more economically viable in the long run when built as multi-purpose in some form, especially when you look at research, shipyard infrastructure, upgrade costs and general logistics. That is why the larger you build your ships the more multi-purpose you generally want them to be. Carriers in general are very cost effective because the hangar modules never need to be upgraded so upgrading these ships are generally less complex.

Military aircraft in the real world have been multi-role in varying degrees for a very long time. The F-35 is just an extreme example of a multi-role and its failure or success have yet to be proven as far I know, but it surely seem to be too expensive but only the future will answer that question.