Ground Unit Weight Adjustment

[alex_brunius]

Bear in mind that in Aurora tonnage is really volume. Otherwise, ships would become 'lighter' as they used fuel or fired missiles. I have avoiding splitting volume and mass because it would make things a lot more complex with a corresponding improvement in game play. An infantryman with better armour would be slightly larger, but probably not enough to make a significant game play difference when you consider most of the 'tonnage' required for transport isn't the infantryman himself.

Plus different players may have different mental images of what 'power armour' means or what an 'infantryman' means, so why force them into a particular definition?

The main thing that I find slightly inconsistent with the mechanics is that a superheavy ground units of 300 ton that you add armor to stays the same tonnage, but a fighter of 300 ton does not ( regardless of what definitions used I would expect the behavior to be similar ).

[Iceranger]

Bear in mind that in Aurora tonnage is really volume. Otherwise, ships would become 'lighter' as they used fuel or fired missiles. I have avoiding splitting volume and mass because it would make things a lot more complex with a corresponding improvement in game play. An infantryman with better armour would be slightly larger, but probably not enough to make a significant game play difference when you consider most of the 'tonnage' required for transport isn't the infantryman himself.

Plus different players may have different mental images of what 'power armour' means or what an 'infantryman' means, so why force them into a particular definition?

The main thing that I find slightly inconsistent with the mechanics is that a superheavy ground units of 300 ton that you add armor to stays the same tonnage, but a fighter of 300 ton does not ( regardless of what definitions used I would expect the behavior to be similar ).

Again, think of tonnage as size. Adding additional armor plating onto a tank does not significantly change its size, or the cargo space needed to transport that tank.

[alex_brunius]

Again, think of tonnage as size. Adding additional armor plating onto a tank does not significantly change its size, or the cargo space needed to transport that tank.

That's fine, but if so then why does adding additional same technology armor plating onto a fighter change both it's size VERY significantly as well as the cargo space needed to transport it?  ( this is where the inconsistency is )

[the obelisk]

Again, think of tonnage as size. Adding additional armor plating onto a tank does not significantly change its size, or the cargo space needed to transport that tank.

It may somewhat come down to interpretation, I suppose, but I've used medium vehicles with light vehicle armor to represent vehicles similar to the USA's Stryker.  The size and mass/weight difference between that, and a modern main battle tank is absolutely significant enough to be represented on the scale ground units use, especially if you consider that additional armor means more materials needed to maintain the vehicle.

This holds even more true with power armor, since it should require the transportation of significantly more in the way of power storage, at the very least, than non-power-armored infantry.

[alex_brunius]

Another related inconsistency here is that adding armor to ships/fighters requires neutronium while vehicle armor requires vendarite.

Speaking about Neutronium it's also slightly odd that the Ground Force Construction Complex requires loads of it but no vendarite. I mean Construction Factories do use neutronium but neither Ordnance Factories nor Fighter factories does, so why should "Ground factories" do so?

[Father Tim]

Another related inconsistency here is that adding armor to ships/fighters requires neutronium while vehicle armor requires vendarite.

Speaking about Neutronium it's also slightly odd that the Ground Force Construction Complex requires loads of it but no vendarite. I mean Construction Factories do use neutronium but neither Ordnance Factories nor Fighter factories does, so why should "Ground factories" do so?

It's not inconsistent; it's tech.  Duranium and High-Density Duranium armours are both made from, unsurprisingly, Duranium.  Other types of armour are made from Neutronium, or Corbomite, or whatever.

The preponderance of Vendarite in ground unit construction is from the displacement required to keep the personnel happy and the vehicles maintained, not sheets of TNE compounds being welded to the sides.

- - - - -

The differing mineral requirements for the different installations arose from our desire to have the other five TNEs be useful.  Originally, pretty much everything was built with duranium and there was never enough of that while everybody ended up with massive stockpiles of the 'useless' minerals.  The current costs may not make a lot of sense to you but they are a hell of a lot better than the old ones.

[alex_brunius]

It's not inconsistent; it's tech. 

If the difference is in tech, then why does the same technology improve both of them? 

Duranium and High-Density Duranium armours are both made from, unsurprisingly, Duranium.

So why doesn't spaceships cost more duranium when I increase their armor but instead cost more Neutronium? 

Other types of armour are made from Neutronium, or Corbomite, or whatever.

The preponderance of Vendarite in ground unit construction is from the displacement required to keep the personnel happy and the vehicles maintained, not sheets of TNE compounds being welded to the sides.

Yes, that does make sense. But I think there is still room for improvements by not having ground units require 100% of a single mineral now that they are actually broken down into sub components and have all this added detail. That doesn't mean that tanks should need mostly duranium/neutronium but maybe 25-50% could be dependent on their type/armor instead. You can also reverse that argument by asking the question "should not keeping vehicles maintained and personnel happy be something that is needed in our space ships aswell just as is done for ground forces?" ( Crew quarters in ships seems to require Mercassium instead )

The differing mineral requirements for the different installations arose from our desire to have the other five TNEs be useful.  Originally, pretty much everything was built with duranium and there was never enough of that while everybody ended up with massive stockpiles of the 'useless' minerals.  The current costs may not make a lot of sense to you but they are a hell of a lot better than the old ones.

That is ofcourse an improvement, and there are still some resources that are much more sought after than others as well. My point is mainly that there are still room for balancing and better consistency in the area of mineral costs. I don't think it's impossible to have well balanced mineral costs that does also make sense like all factories that "make stuff" have some shared resources they all use chiefly so that this is what you need to expand an empires production capacity. Maintenance being decoupled from ship costs also open up another opportunity to improve balancing ( IMO MSP requiring Gallicite which already was in high demand before for all ship engines / missiles might have been a step back from a balance standpoint ).

[Malorn]

There is such a thing as game balance. There are also limits to how consistent something ought to be, before it becomes pedantic. This is science-fiction, I can most assuredly explain away anything with a likely sounding piece of logic. For example.

• Perhaps ground unit armor improvement involve different things than that of fighters or space units. Honeycombed structures, different uses of different metals. For all we know TN elements behave differently in and out of gravity?! Or perhaps the armor on the unit is increasing in weight, but also require less maintenance, meaning the overall weight with support systems doesn't increase because there is less need for replacement materials? Perhaps neutronium is a bad idea for ground unit armor because it's doesn't handle atmosphere well without being coated by something else? There are a thousand possible explanations one could use.
• Perhaps there are different requirements for crew versus ground unit quarters because they are exposed to different dangers. Perhaps all the mercassium in the crew quarters is there to help buffer the crew from being exposed to the other TN elements, which could in theory cause health risks. The transported troops, on the other hand, aren't crawling around the ship and manning it's equipment, so instead it's better to just us a different TN to shield them entirely from exposure? Maybe the ground units aren't even awake? Cryonics is a thing, after all.

My point is that demanding consistency doesn't really involve anything of the sort. It is always possible to make up one explanation or another. And indeed it is necessary to make up an explanation merely to demand the consistency in the first place. Flexibility and balance matter more, since the fluff can move around that balance and flexibility.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Bear in mind that in Aurora tonnage is really volume. Otherwise, ships would become 'lighter' as they used fuel or fired missiles. I have avoiding splitting volume and mass because it would make things a lot more complex with a corresponding improvement in game play. An infantryman with better armour would be slightly larger, but probably not enough to make a significant game play difference when you consider most of the 'tonnage' required for transport isn't the infantryman himself.

Plus different players may have different mental images of what 'power armour' means or what an 'infantryman' means, so why force them into a particular definition?

The main thing that I find slightly inconsistent with the mechanics is that a superheavy ground units of 300 ton that you add armor to stays the same tonnage, but a fighter of 300 ton does not ( regardless of what definitions used I would expect the behavior to be similar ).

The thing is that the MAJORITY of the weight is NOT that fighting equipment itself it is the logistics surrounding it.

A standard Infantry unit displaces 5 Aurora tons which is equal to around 70 cubic meters of volume. The man and his combat gear must be a tiny fraction of that, the rest is all the stuff needed to support that infantry man over time... the vast majority of items is probably none combat items as well.

In my opinion... does the armour impact the logistics of the unit. My answer to that question is probably negligible but perhaps to some small degree in some cases. The difference between light and Heavy Power armour likely would produce some extra logistical needs even if rather small to support the more advanced type of armour.

But obviously it also is a balance issue.

The size of units is from a strategic and NOT a tactical perspective... so any images of tactical use of said equipment is basically of no consequence in this equation.

[alex_brunius]

The main thing that I find slightly inconsistent with the mechanics is that a superheavy ground units of 300 ton that you add armor to stays the same tonnage, but a fighter of 300 ton does not ( regardless of what definitions used I would expect the behavior to be similar ).

The thing is that the MAJORITY of the weight is NOT that fighting equipment itself it is the logistics surrounding it.

A standard Infantry unit displaces 5 Aurora tons which is equal to around 70 cubic meters of volume. The man and his combat gear must be a tiny fraction of that, the rest is all the stuff needed to support that infantry man over time... the vast majority of items is probably none combat items as well.

Why are you responding with an example of an infantryman when the inconsistency I pointed out is focused on a 300 ton superheavy vehicle in the other end of the scale?

A 300 ton superheavy vehicle is operating in exactly the same environment as a 300 ton fighter, and both can potentially be designed to fire on eachother ( if ground unit is equipped with AA ) so they can interact. Ground units can also be engaged effectively by the same weapons that engages fighters ( and their armor impacts damage taken ), so it's for me quite logical that similar armoring approaches would be needed.

The size of units is from a strategic and NOT a tactical perspective... so any images of tactical use of said equipment is basically of no consequence in this equation.

My feeling is that the ground combat system could benefit from having a more severe strategic considerations of when to armor a unit and when not to then simply impacting it's cost ( by also using size and materials needed ). Don't you agree that this would add richness and depth to the game for very little added complexity in the same way we all appreciate how this works for spaceship design?


It could also be argued that in my example brought up it is very much a tactical consideration or at very least operational. For example how many fighters can fit in a Carrier Hangar vs how many Superheavy vehicles can fit in a troop transport bay impacts how many you can bring.

I'm mostly fine with the majority of materials for infantry being what it is and size not being impacted by armoring them. But when you put the same kind of weapon and fight in the same environment vs another same size vehicle, then I do expect there to be a more consistent distribution of materials and it breaks my immersion when putting very heavy armor on a fighter has a very different impact than doing it on a ground vehicle of same size, both in terms of tonnage and in terms of materials needed for building it.

There is such a thing as game balance.

Indeed there is, and as you can see in my post game balance is one of the main concerns. Most areas of aurora that have had time to refine their balance strike a beautiful point between game balance and immersion. Ground units that were very recently added are not quite there yet, but I think the same level of balance and immersion is possible to be reached in this area too once there is time to polish this new system more. Don't you?

[Jorgen_CAB]

The main thing that I find slightly inconsistent with the mechanics is that a superheavy ground units of 300 ton that you add armor to stays the same tonnage, but a fighter of 300 ton does not ( regardless of what definitions used I would expect the behavior to be similar ).

The thing is that the MAJORITY of the weight is NOT that fighting equipment itself it is the logistics surrounding it.

A standard Infantry unit displaces 5 Aurora tons which is equal to around 70 cubic meters of volume. The man and his combat gear must be a tiny fraction of that, the rest is all the stuff needed to support that infantry man over time... the vast majority of items is probably none combat items as well.

Why are you responding with an example of an infantryman when the inconsistency I pointed out is focused on a 300 ton superheavy vehicle in the other end of the scale?

A 300 ton superheavy vehicle is operating in exactly the same environment as a 300 ton fighter, and both can potentially be designed to fire on eachother ( if ground unit is equipped with AA ) so they can interact. Ground units can also be engaged effectively by the same weapons that engages fighters ( and their armor impacts damage taken ), so it's for me quite logical that similar armoring approaches would be needed.

The size of units is from a strategic and NOT a tactical perspective... so any images of tactical use of said equipment is basically of no consequence in this equation.

My feeling is that the ground combat system could benefit from having a more severe strategic considerations of when to armor a unit and when not to then simply impacting it's cost ( by also using size and materials needed ). Don't you agree that this would add richness and depth to the game for very little added complexity in the same way we all appreciate how this works for spaceship design?


It could also be argued that in my example brought up it is very much a tactical consideration or at very least operational. For example how many fighters can fit in a Carrier Hangar vs how many Superheavy vehicles can fit in a troop transport bay impacts how many you can bring.

I'm mostly fine with the majority of materials for infantry being what it is and size not being impacted by armoring them. But when you put the same kind of weapon and fight in the same environment vs another same size vehicle, then I do expect there to be a more consistent distribution of materials and it breaks my immersion when putting very heavy armor on a fighter has a very different impact than doing it on a ground vehicle of same size, both in terms of tonnage and in terms of materials needed for building it.

Ok... I think that you missed my entire point there... there are NO 300t ground vehicles in the game. What is 300t in the game is about 95-98% logistical support and about 2-5% actual units... so your 300t vehicle is at best 5-15t vehicle which is pretty big... about 75-200 cubic meters in size perhaps.

So I felt that the argument that you presented was in fact invalid... even if you double the armour weight it would do little to the overall logistical needs of the unit as the units size is what matters the most. I also said that armour could be impacting logistics but that it might not be enough to bother about and that it also was a balancing thing.

I never said anything about the idea of armour having impact on size might be better or not. We don't even know if more armour actually translate into more mass in Aurora either or how it impact a units design. As the size is static you might very well argue that more armour make the unit less complex as the volume stays the same so adding armour might actually require less logistics as you can fit less advanced stuff in it... a little like armour on missiles in VB6.

Anyway... there is no point comparing a 300t fighter with a 300t ground unit as they are in no way alike.

Ground units are strategical while fighters is a tactical unit and they operate on entirely different scales. The ground unit design is less complex as a result... the fact that you can build "ground fighters" from the regular ship designer I think is a mistake. You should just have had a special hangar where you could have operated ground based fighter units or something... the "fighters" in space should never have been involved and we can't compare the two design systems as one are detailed while the other strategically abstract.
You could then also allow ground fighters to operate from regular hangars as well but at say double their weight requirement so regular hangars could hold them. Ground fighter hangars could then also be a commercial component like troop transport components.

There are allot of stuff that could be done to further ground combat and I don't believe that adding more detail to the units add that much depth. The combat mechanics in itself could be changed a bit in the future to provide more believable ground wars (without even less micromanagement) while integrate some more depth to space to ground bombardments as well... currently ground bombardment scale very badly as an example.

[Droll]

Ok... I think that you missed my entire point there... there are NO 300t ground vehicles in the game. What is 300t in the game is about 95-98% logistical support and about 2-5% actual units... so your 300t vehicle is at best 5-15t vehicle which is pretty big... about 75-200 cubic meters in size perhaps.

A WW2 Tiger I heavy tank weighs 54 tons and takes up 64 cubic meters of space. In aurora a heavy tank design with HAV and HAC can take around 160 tons of space.
So I find it hard to believe that the combat weight of 300ts of vehicle is 15ts tops. That is probably an armored car, which wouldn't make sense for a super heavy vehicle type.

Although your estimation is out of whack, I kind of agree that armor doesn't really matter for size comparisons. That space is factored in when you select the actual base type.

Also consider that the only distinction between heavy and lighter armors is the protective capacity and cost. Having heavy armor as opposed to medium does not necessarily mean thicker plate - it can mean more expensive but sophisticated materials, a la the composite armor schemes most MBTs of today have. And even if it did mean thicker plate the main variable being affected here is the weight of the tank not the space it displaces in cubic meters. If tonnage in Aurora actually meant weight as opposed to space it would provide a much stronger argument.

I do actually wish that a new ground unit class called "aircraft" would be added like you suggest, it would simplify AA mechanics and allow easier organization of support aircraft into air wings. It would also allow you to further develop it and have light and heavy aircraft variants. More importantly fiddly ground support pods can be abstracted away into ground supply.

[alex_brunius]

Ok... I think that you missed my entire point there... there are NO 300t ground vehicles in the game. What is 300t in the game is about 95-98% logistical support and about 2-5% actual units... so your 300t vehicle is at best 5-15t vehicle which is pretty big...

That a 300t ground vehicle should be 5 ton vehicle and 295 ton support is pure and simple bulls****. You know this and I know this.

I can just as well argue that a 300t fighter is 5t vehicle and the other 295 ton is support for it sitting inside the hangar. It's exactly the same thing and it's equally much bull***.

Anyway... there is no point comparing a 300t fighter with a 300t ground unit as they are in no way alike.

IMO they are very much alike. Let's say we make a fighter that can loiter in an atmosphere for years ( deployment time and engineering ), and a ground unit that can loiter in an atmosphere for years ( by default ). Both have the same kind of weaponry ( designed to hit enemy ground units and doing identical damage ) and both can be made identical in size.

Actually atmosphere is optional here since ground units work fine on space rocks without one as well.

In what ways are these vehicles different things? They have the same size, same target and same mission ( destroying enemy ground units ).

the fact that you can build "ground fighters" from the regular ship designer I think is a mistake.

I love it. IMO it's awesome to be able to load ground weaponry on space fighters and send them in to do ground support from your Carriers and it's something that exists in almost any Sci-Fi universe as well.

[Hawkeye]

AFAIR, a "ton" in Aurora represents the volume a ton of liquid hydrogen takes, which is around 14m^3, I believe.
So your 300 ton tank along with it's support structure takes up a volume of 4200m^3

So your superheavy tank might be four times the size of a Tiger I and take up 256m^3 and it's support structure would take up the remaining 3944m^3


Of course, I could be completely off but I'm sure someone will correct me soon enough in that case.

[Jorgen_CAB]

AFAIR, a "ton" in Aurora represents the volume a ton of liquid hydrogen takes, which is around 14m^3, I believe.
So your 300 ton tank along with it's support structure takes up a volume of 4200m^3

So your superheavy tank might be four times the size of a Tiger I and take up 256m^3 and it's support structure would take up the remaining 3944m^3


Of course, I could be completely off but I'm sure someone will correct me soon enough in that case.

Yes... it is allot easier to view this on an infantry soldier.

Five Aurora tons are equal to roughly 70m^3... if we assume a soldier takes up about 1-1.5m^3 that leaves allot if space for food, housing gears, ammunition, water and perhaps air etc...

I know this because Steve already said as much in some other thread. The size is not just the soldier but also all the gear, ammunition and life support that it needs. Steve had even looked up roughly the room it takes for a real soldier in terms of supply to make a rough calculation for the sizes in the game if I remember correctly.

The sizes in the game is a strategical abstraction of everything needed for some specific equipment to function on the battlefield.

So... no... it is not bull and I know it...