Author Topic: Replacing PDCs  (Read 82059 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #135 on: October 14, 2017, 08:08:40 AM »
Will units with ground-to-space capability be able to attack ground units on other bodies?  I'm thinking of units on a planet firing at units on a moon or visa versa.  Mars-Phobos is a particularly good example because Phobos is so low.

I plan to treat units with ground to space weapons as 'ships' for combat purposes. You will designate a target in the ground combat window and it will fire during the normal combat phase. I will include active sensors and fire control in the cost of the unit (similar to a CIWS) so it will be self-contained. There are some realism issues firing from moon to planet and vice versa (if the moon is on the wrong side) but as ground combat only uses a single location I think that can be overlooked in favour of more entertaining game play.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #136 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

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #137 on: October 14, 2017, 10:13:47 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.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2017, 10:17:39 AM by Hazard »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #138 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: bean, DIT_grue

Offline Arwyn

  • Gold Supporter
  • Commander
  • *****
  • A
  • Posts: 338
  • Thanked: 40 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #139 on: October 14, 2017, 12:31:56 PM »
Steve, that looks really good, this is starting to really come together! :)

One suggestion though, you may want to flip the HP values for Static and Aircraft.

Modern aircraft are pretty fragile compared to a bunker or prepared position. Any sort of major damage that doesn't outright destroy the aircraft will more often than not render them militarily combat lossed as they are retired to rear areas for maintenance. In fact, most modern wars, the damage to loss ratio is 4:1.

In short planes/choppers are squishy. :)

Conversely, a battalion sized prepared defensive position is pretty tough. This can range from a defense position consisting of unimproved trenches and bunkers, to heavily reinforced concrete bunkers, underground passageways and magazines. For a battalion, those positions can be pretty large.

I like your current idea on mixed battalions. Thats pretty much they way it works right now for most militaries. Most infantry battalions run something like three companies of infantry and one weapons company (heavy weapons) or support.

As far as Air to Ground weapons, you really already have them. Most aircraft systems are derivative of existing vehicle systems. Bombs would be analogous to bombardment weapons, as would most anti-tank weapon systems.

You can kind of generalize. Light bombardment weapons could cover infantry mortars or light artillery, light bombs for aircraft or light weight missile systems.

This is all sounding pretty good, looking forward to see how it develops!
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #140 on: October 14, 2017, 04:02:00 PM »
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.

Consider allowing non-missile orbital bombardment to function similarly as missile based bombardment if there's no forward fire controller available. Including things like odds of hitting your own troops. This means you don't need to develop dedicated orbital bombardment units if you want to play without missiles otherwise. It's also much, much cheaper and easier on your logistics.

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.

If a fire direction unit takes a full slot that's kind of expensive, especially at the lowest command level. Consider letting a Brigade level fire direction unit direct support fire for all underlying Battalions. Division level fire support grants fire support to 1 Brigade worth of units, but at lower chance of calling down a barrage to balance the greater scope; they're more likely to be out of position.

Also, let more than 1 bombardment/orbital fire support unit be directed by 1 fire director. On the one hand, better chance of leveling whatever opposition. On the other hand, overkill is a waste of munitions. Likewise also, fire support/directors reporting to the same HQ should probably get (minor) bonuses due to familiarity etc.

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.

Depends on how granular you want to make the formations. Roughly speaking a fire team/element of an infantry unit is 3 people, a squad is made up of 3 or 4 such fire teams and a 2 man squad command, 3 or 4 squads in a platoon, counting up to about 40 people total due to a number very sensible reasons to do with being able to communicate with and thus command a unit that big without radio, a company ranges at about 100-150 people due to a number of likewise very sensible reasons but these are to do with how human relationship mentalities work and battalion ranges from 2 to 8 companies, depending on the size of the companies and usually between 300 to 800 people. Higher formations are usually 3-5 of the direct lower formations and maybe half such a unit in smaller sections of support units.

This confines to an extent the number of potential forces you can shove into a command and thus what you can attach directly to a battalion. Then again, brigade/division assets are a thing too and can be handled through attaching such forces to that level of HQ.

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.

Static units should either get an independent tech line or upgrade from the starship techline. Are upgrades a thing in this system?

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.

Abstracting mobility into being another source of HP then?

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.

Sounds sensible.

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.

Is this per unit/number of entities in a unit? Presuming of course than a company is the unit we're talking about.

Can we decide to use a lower tech armour for the (presumed) cost savings to get a cheap but heavy hitting unit by putting a really big/high tech gun on a low armoured vehicle?

Some sample weapons (as they currently stand)*snip*

Without having a count of how many weapons of a given type are in a unit it's kinda hard to say if it looks balanced. Personal Infantry Weapons should probably have 2 shots though, due to the great preponderance of modern rapid fire weapons.

Then again, looking at the combat values of pre TN and lowest TN level units, that paradigm might change.

Actually, what's the stats conventional weapons units are equipped with? Because that's going to be your weakest weapon type by definition.

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.

I get that naval combat is always going to be the focus here in this game, but if we are going to design units we should probably also be able to design their weapons. Even if it's just selecting a specific tech line we want to base our ground weapons on. Of course 'I don't want to bother with conversion' is a valid answer here.

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.

This should probably be limited to light/medium weapons with an AP stat, given that aircraft are all armoured and likely to move fast.

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.

This would mean then I presume that the % penetration chance in equal tech levels is equal to the published weapons AP values.

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.

In that case, consider letting the side with the vehicle/bombardment/aircraft advantage to have a higher chance of hitting rear and support positions due to an advantage in speed and/or range. This would make a force made up of a lot of fast moving units capable of standing against a force made up of a lot of static or slow moving units by hitting enemy rear positions, although hardly guaranteed success.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #141 on: October 14, 2017, 04:31:57 PM »
As I've mentioned before, anti-starship weaponry for infantry doesn't just include missiles but lasers and railguns as well. It could very well be a mobile tripod mounted weaponry that 2-5 soldiers lug around (possibly with something like a 4x4 jeep) and set up whenever they need to fire. Think something like this;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Hires_090509-A-4842R-001a.jpg
Heavier soldier types (Power armor, heavy power armor) could potentially mount one of those on its shoulder/back (like my earlier mention of the Dragoon from Ember Wars).

I don't think you got the sizes quite right here.

Unless I got something wrong in Aurora 4x one HS = 50 ton and equals 20 MSP. This means the smallest Anti Missile would be 2.5 tons and your "normal" Anti ship missiles would be around 10 tons or so.

As a comparison a Tomahawk cruise missile is 1.6 tons (including booster), this is not something that's man-portable.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 719
  • Thanked: 133 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #142 on: October 14, 2017, 07:23:00 PM »
Consider the Flak 88, they weighed about 8 tons, and in a pinch were man-portable.  They had 10-man crews, and were light enough where they could be moved by hand if necessary.  They were primarily towed into position, but they could, and were pushed by hand when they had to relocate in a hurry.

I could see a similar thing in Aurora, with unlucky infantry lugging around some big laser or a single-shot anti-ship missile launcher.

Related note: Ships should be able to be targeted by anti-air ground units while landing or picking up troops; presumably they have to enter the atmosphere to drop troops off.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2017, 07:25:06 PM by Barkhorn »
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #143 on: October 14, 2017, 09:04:44 PM »
Consider the Flak 88, they weighed about 8 tons, and in a pinch were man-portable.  They had 10-man crews, and were light enough where they could be moved by hand if necessary.  They were primarily towed into position, but they could, and were pushed by hand when they had to relocate in a hurry.

I could see a similar thing in Aurora, with unlucky infantry lugging around some big laser or a single-shot anti-ship missile launcher.

Related note: Ships should be able to be targeted by anti-air ground units while landing or picking up troops; presumably they have to enter the atmosphere to drop troops off.

That's not the meaning of 'man portable.'

Man portable means can be moved on march by hand, if necessarily by crew. This is something that's possible with crew served long range anti tank missiles, mortars and heavy machine guns. This is not something possible with 8 tons of gun. And certainly not with the 10 man unit dedicated to using the gun.

Now, a 10 man unit in a fortified position could use such a gun to do horrible things to incoming aircraft, and that was exactly what happened, but that's the Static unit type, not the Infantry unit type.
 

Offline obsidian_green

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • o
  • Posts: 164
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #144 on: October 14, 2017, 10:18:25 PM »
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.
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #145 on: October 14, 2017, 10:30:31 PM »
In short planes/choppers are squishy. :)
But think of this; With TN technology, and "aircraft" could very well be a flying tank (literally).
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 719
  • Thanked: 133 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #146 on: October 14, 2017, 10:48:30 PM »
That's not the meaning of 'man portable.'

Man portable means can be moved on march by hand, if necessarily by crew. This is something that's possible with crew served long range anti tank missiles, mortars and heavy machine guns. This is not something possible with 8 tons of gun. And certainly not with the 10 man unit dedicated to using the gun.

Now, a 10 man unit in a fortified position could use such a gun to do horrible things to incoming aircraft, and that was exactly what happened, but that's the Static unit type, not the Infantry unit type.
Well to be fair, no modern military marches anywhere anymore.  The level of portability required to call something man-portable has really dropped off.  Nobody's hiking 20 miles while lugging a mortar around anymore.  Especially when you consider that the US military RIGHT NOW is working on pack-mule drones like the Mules in Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2, which blur the line between man-portable and not man-portable.  Now consider that beam weapons are likely to be quite modular.  A railgun for instance could have multiple rails that snap together.  Unlike a gun-powder based weapon, there's no pressure being contained, so the weapon can be made easy to disassemble.  So you could have a weapon crew be 5-10 men and 10 or so of these pack mule drones.  The drones carry the gun, its charging equipment, and its ammunition, the men assemble and operate it on site.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #147 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

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #148 on: October 15, 2017, 07:33:58 AM »
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.

Yeah, with a lot more infantry in a formation you really need to consider turning the standard infantry weapon into an AP0, Damage 1, Shots 2 weapon. There'd be optimization pressure from the military to get a more rapid fire weapon in everyone's hands. Because against soft, numerous targets you need the biggest number of shots possible because you are going to penetrate anyway.

Actually, of concern; AP0 means that standard infantry formations can do no damage whatsoever against anything with any armour. Is this as intended?

But think of this; With TN technology, and "aircraft" could very well be a flying tank (literally).

The A-10 is a flying tank, but it's armoured about as well as an APC at best. There's a number of reasons for this, all of which boil down to the fact that you can armour a ground vehicle much more effectively for the same weight of armour than any aircraft. Note that I'm ignoring walkers here which are an entirely different armouring challenge.
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #149 on: October 15, 2017, 08:56:45 AM »
The A-10 is a flying tank, but it's armoured about as well as an APC at best. There's a number of reasons for this, all of which boil down to the fact that you can armour a ground vehicle much more effectively for the same weight of armour than any aircraft. Note that I'm ignoring walkers here which are an entirely different armouring challenge.
I was talking something more along the lines of an AC-220 Vulture Gunship from halo. It literally is a flying tank with 4 30mm autocannons, 2 SAM launchers (each launcher fires 9 missiles in a volley), and 2 ASM (air to surface) launchers (each fire 4 at a time). And remember again, this is WITH TN technology, not being analog to current technology.


I don't think you got the sizes quite right here. Unless I got something wrong in Aurora 4x one HS = 50 ton and equals 20 MSP. This means the smallest Anti Missile would be 2.5 tons and your "normal" Anti ship missiles would be around 10 tons or so. As a comparison a Tomahawk cruise missile is 1.6 tons (including booster), this is not something that's man-portable.
Remember when we used to be able to have missiles less than 1 MSP? Ground units could technically be using missiles that small (like a modern day Javelin or Stinger) with a nuclear warhead powerful enough for 1-3 damage because it doesn't need an engine large enough for sustained flight nor the fuel to even leave the gravity well of the planet they are firing from. And like how @Barkhorn said, robotic technology can assist with making the "not man portable" into "man portable". Going to somewhat of an extreme example for the "Power Armor" class of infantry Steve was thinking of, think of a H.ARM suit;
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.