Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441915 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline sloanjh (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1740 on: September 16, 2018, 12:30:50 PM »
Then, when their supplies have been exhausted they go and do things, get maintained, make their way to where they need to go by civilian means, whatever, melt back into society and may or may not be one of the future comandeered trucks.

Yes, that is a good way of looking at it. Although I do like the edible trucks idea :)

So we could call it the CTN "Commercial Truck Network"?  :: ducks and runs away ::

John
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1741 on: September 16, 2018, 01:24:57 PM »
Then, when their supplies have been exhausted they go and do things, get maintained, make their way to where they need to go by civilian means, whatever, melt back into society and may or may not be one of the future comandeered trucks.

Yes, that is a good way of looking at it. Although I do like the edible trucks idea :)
So we could call it the CTN "Commercial Truck Network"?  :: ducks and runs away ::

LOL, its been a while since the Commercial Freight Network :)
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1742 on: September 16, 2018, 04:00:31 PM »
The 'supply trucks' are an abstraction of the logistics system. I considered having vehicles that carried supplies and could be replenished. However, that would require tracking the supplies as a separate item to the supply vehicles, building the supplies separately, adding rules/code to support that resupply process and adding the UI to support that extra detail. Eventually, I decided that having consumable vehicles was a lot more straightforward, so I made the logistics modules smaller and cheaper than originally intended to cover the cost of the vehicle.

GSP is only required for combat and the rest of the time maintenance is purely wealth-based for ground forces. although the point about training is a good one.

Still means that 12 size points worth of unit go up in smoke to provide supply when a vehicle logistical unit is consumed.

I get not wanting more coding overhead though.

Still, this means that a vehicle is 80% efficient when it comes to supplies, while an infantry supply unit is always 100% efficient.

It might be worth it in multi formation set ups, but when you are willing to sling large and unwieldy formations around building only infantry supply in your humongous formation gets you up to 25% more supply than a set up that (also) uses vehicles.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1743 on: September 16, 2018, 04:59:35 PM »
The 'supply trucks' are an abstraction of the logistics system. I considered having vehicles that carried supplies and could be replenished. However, that would require tracking the supplies as a separate item to the supply vehicles, building the supplies separately, adding rules/code to support that resupply process and adding the UI to support that extra detail. Eventually, I decided that having consumable vehicles was a lot more straightforward, so I made the logistics modules smaller and cheaper than originally intended to cover the cost of the vehicle.

GSP is only required for combat and the rest of the time maintenance is purely wealth-based for ground forces. although the point about training is a good one.

Still means that 12 size points worth of unit go up in smoke to provide supply when a vehicle logistical unit is consumed.

I get not wanting more coding overhead though.

Still, this means that a vehicle is 80% efficient when it comes to supplies, while an infantry supply unit is always 100% efficient.

It might be worth it in multi formation set ups, but when you are willing to sling large and unwieldy formations around building only infantry supply in your humongous formation gets you up to 25% more supply than a set up that (also) uses vehicles.

However, as those will be front-line units it also opens your supply units to direct attack. It is a trade-off.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1744 on: September 16, 2018, 05:24:19 PM »
However, as those will be front-line units it also opens your supply units to direct attack. It is a trade-off.

A solid point.

Still, that only matters for frontline formations. If the backline is still a thing this is absolutely something you can do with Bombardment units. If they're getting shot at something has gone drastically wrong after all.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1745 on: September 16, 2018, 11:08:59 PM »
I'm personally fine with just assuming used up trucks get picked up as the loaded ones are being dropped off, personally.  From this games perspective the real meat of logistics will be getting things onto the planet to begin with, so I don't hugely mind it being kindof abstracted.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1746 on: September 17, 2018, 12:57:25 AM »
Alternately, think of the 20% overhead as fuel and spare parts for the trucks delivering the supplies from the back line, as opposed to a more efficient but more vulnerable setup where the supply depots are located up front with the troops.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2018, 02:19:57 AM by Bremen »
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Commander
  • *********
  • W
  • Posts: 330
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1747 on: September 17, 2018, 01:53:30 AM »
About the new combat rules, I am a bit worried about the breakthrough mechanic. If one race uses many smaller formations they seem much more prone to getting a formation annihilated than using a few (one) massive formation. Also, how is massive overkill handled, generating 1 soldier formations to absorb a divisions firepower should also not be a thing, even if these tiny formations are very unlikely to be targeted.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1748 on: September 17, 2018, 04:22:45 AM »
About the new combat rules, I am a bit worried about the breakthrough mechanic. If one race uses many smaller formations they seem much more prone to getting a formation annihilated than using a few (one) massive formation. Also, how is massive overkill handled, generating 1 soldier formations to absorb a divisions firepower should also not be a thing, even if these tiny formations are very unlikely to be targeted.

The breakthrough mechanic is partially to avoid the potential exploitation of using unrealistic tiny formation elements. Even so, it is still only a second attack, not multiple attacks (so huge formation elements are not too useful). The other downside to many tiny elements is the micromanagement aspect, plus no commander support and probably no support from the rest of the hierarchy due to the lack of HQs. I need to add the various commander bonuses to the ground combat rules.
 

Offline sloanjh (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1749 on: September 17, 2018, 08:05:55 AM »
The breakthrough mechanic is partially to avoid the potential exploitation of using unrealistic tiny formation elements. Even so, it is still only a second attack, not multiple attacks (so huge formation elements are not too useful). The other downside to many tiny elements is the micromanagement aspect, plus no commander support and probably no support from the rest of the hierarchy due to the lack of HQs. I need to add the various commander bonuses to the ground combat rules.

To make sure I understand:

  1) massive overkill is the disincentive to making huge formations - even with a breakthrough attack, a 10x overkill size imbalance means you waste 40-80% of your combat power (could have killed 10 (or twenty with breakthrough), instead kill 1 twice)

  2) breakthrough attack (plus micro management) is the disincentive to making tiny formations - if your formations are too small your opponent will get 2x kills.

  I forget: are players allowed to move units amongst the 4 postures every 3 hours?  If so, perhaps they should be able to "shatter" or "group" the level of combat formations they're using at the same time.  Otherwise a lot of the efficiency in the combat will be a guessing game of "at what level should I group my formations". 

  Thought experiment: if a monolithic corps sized unit "A" is in combat with an enemy corps that is broken into battalions "B", the "A" corps could break up into divisions at the first 3 hour mark, brigades at the second, and so on.  In the mean time, "B" would be breaking into companies, platoons etc to keep in the massive overkill mode until "A" got small enough to be in the "optimal overkill" range (presumably squad vs. individual") at which point "B" would start aggregating.  This doesn't sound like a great result, so....

  How about a unit can "shatter" as many levels as it wants, but can only "group" one level per turn.  So in the thought experiment "A" could shatter into brigades or battalions (or even some of each) after the first turn.  "B" could still try to race to the bottom, but "A" would be able to follow much more quickly.

  Here's another suggestion to encourage large units: give a mild power to the combat power of a formation, e.g. adjustedPower = rawPower^1.1 or rawPower^1.2.  That would encourage aggregation.

John
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1750 on: September 17, 2018, 09:25:43 AM »
The breakthrough mechanic is partially to avoid the potential exploitation of using unrealistic tiny formation elements. Even so, it is still only a second attack, not multiple attacks (so huge formation elements are not too useful). The other downside to many tiny elements is the micromanagement aspect, plus no commander support and probably no support from the rest of the hierarchy due to the lack of HQs. I need to add the various commander bonuses to the ground combat rules.

To make sure I understand:

  1) massive overkill is the disincentive to making huge formations - even with a breakthrough attack, a 10x overkill size imbalance means you waste 40-80% of your combat power (could have killed 10 (or twenty with breakthrough), instead kill 1 twice)

  2) breakthrough attack (plus micro management) is the disincentive to making tiny formations - if your formations are too small your opponent will get 2x kills.

  I forget: are players allowed to move units amongst the 4 postures every 3 hours?  If so, perhaps they should be able to "shatter" or "group" the level of combat formations they're using at the same time.  Otherwise a lot of the efficiency in the combat will be a guessing game of "at what level should I group my formations". 

  Thought experiment: if a monolithic corps sized unit "A" is in combat with an enemy corps that is broken into battalions "B", the "A" corps could break up into divisions at the first 3 hour mark, brigades at the second, and so on.  In the mean time, "B" would be breaking into companies, platoons etc to keep in the massive overkill mode until "A" got small enough to be in the "optimal overkill" range (presumably squad vs. individual") at which point "B" would start aggregating.  This doesn't sound like a great result, so....

  How about a unit can "shatter" as many levels as it wants, but can only "group" one level per turn.  So in the thought experiment "A" could shatter into brigades or battalions (or even some of each) after the first turn.  "B" could still try to race to the bottom, but "A" would be able to follow much more quickly.

  Here's another suggestion to encourage large units: give a mild power to the combat power of a formation, e.g. adjustedPower = rawPower^1.1 or rawPower^1.2.  That would encourage aggregation.

John

I haven't decided yet on the ability of formations to swap units while in battle or how they move between field positions. At the moment I am leaning toward moving one field position per combat round with the positions being 1) Front Line Attack, 2) Front Line Defence, 3) Support, 4) Rear Echelon. Also, only formations in rear echelon (or maybe support - need to decide) can exchange units. So if you want to reorganize during combat, you will need to pull formations out of the line to do so.

I will also add the various levels of ground combat bonus for superior HQs, so large formations will make better use of the available high quality commanders.
 
The following users thanked this post: serger

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1751 on: September 17, 2018, 12:07:44 PM »
Entirely honest question, is the size of the frontline dictated by the number of formation or the size of the units in a deployed force?

Also, I'd vote for not letting Support line units swap units around. Otherwise there's no real reason to place units on the Rear Echelon.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1752 on: September 17, 2018, 12:54:21 PM »
Entirely honest question, is the size of the frontline dictated by the number of formation or the size of the units in a deployed force?

Also, I'd vote for not letting Support line units swap units around. Otherwise there's no real reason to place units on the Rear Echelon.

Front line size is based on total size of the units deployed in front line formations.
 

Offline sloanjh (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1753 on: September 17, 2018, 05:56:16 PM »
I will also add the various levels of ground combat bonus for superior HQs, so large formations will make better use of the available high quality commanders.

Makes sense - realized it on the way to work after posting.

John
 

Offline sloanjh (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1754 on: September 17, 2018, 06:06:30 PM »
I haven't decided yet on the ability of formations to swap units while in battle or how they move between field positions. At the moment I am leaning toward moving one field position per combat round with the positions being 1) Front Line Attack, 2) Front Line Defence, 3) Support, 4) Rear Echelon. Also, only formations in rear echelon (or maybe support - need to decide) can exchange units. So if you want to reorganize during combat, you will need to pull formations out of the line to do so.

Will units in rear echelon also regain suppressed morale (due to losses) at a higher rate?

John