Replacing PDCs

[Whitecold]

There are no longer any short-duration troop transport modules, as the 'landing craft' are now the abstract drop ships. This is partly to reduce micromanagement and the number of different ground-related orders, but also to create a real flavour of an opposed landing and to require investment in 'amphibious' operations. Any STO weapons on the surface will be able to target the landing ships on the way in and out of the drop zone. The player has a few options in terms of the troop ships. For example, large and heavily armoured dropping large formations, small and fast with small formations or raiding parties, or bare bones and expendable. Of course, additional ships can accompany the troop ships in an attempt to distract or suppress the defences.

The problem I see here is that IMHO the design choice of armored vs fast vs expendable should go into the dropships not their carriers. For me the troop carrier will always be a interstellar freighter designed to stay the heck out of harms way. This then unloads into the specialty ships that make the actual attack, the dropships, which should absolutely land themselves and unload directly on the ground, safe from STO units. The abstract dropships should have some range, being deployed outside beam range and make an attack run, taking the fire of any STO units. As already mentioned, with 2 min wait time (which seems very short to me to disembark) only 'abandon' will ever be used against a contested planet, making all non-dropship equipped bays without a purpose.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I agree drop pods is a better description than drop ships, as ships implies something larger. I envisioned the pods as a TN version of a CH54 Skycrane, although more compact. The reason to abstract them is to avoid all the potential complexities around different unit sizes.

I agree that in a heavily defended landing zone, 'abandon' is the most likely option. However, I wanted the 'recover' option for more lightly defended planets and for heavily armoured troop ships designed to withstand ground fire for 60 seconds or so, but mainly because there needs to be some way to pull troops out when the landing is going badly. Maybe there could be a fourth bay type - abandon only - but i'm not sure that option would used very often when the recover option is so useful to have just in case.

I'm considering changing 'cargo handling systems' to 'cargo shuttles' and cargo/colony ships without that module will only be able to use Spaceports or a smaller 'Landing Field' (new installation). In that case, the pod-equipped troopships would be the only ones able to deliver and pick up troops at minor colonies. The commercial troopships would be moving from port to port, rather than the Aurora equivalent of picking up troops off a beach.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Do CIWS fit into this damage conversion dynamic at all?  Probably not, eh.

No, CIWS is just for missile interception.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

This is quite probable. However, it does mean that giving Static units access to better armour similar to other ground units can give you more options and answer the question of 'do I want to fortify a desert or barren world' with 'yes.' Because now you can armour the STO units effectively, if not necessarily cheaply. On the other hand, jungle/mountain STO units will remain cheap and effective, or more expensive and really, really annoying to try and bombard into submission due to not being locked to the lowest armour level.

It also means you can now actually create effective hardened defense positions instead of glass cannons a properly prepared enemy assault force can force relatively easily. And yes, a properly dug in, armoured Static defense unit is going to be horrible to dig out; that's something the various defensive positions the Japanese established in the Pacific as well as the Vietcong demonstrated very ably.

It is a good point about the planets with less useful terrain for defending. However, I have to be careful about balance with static weapons as they are very cheap compared to vehicles. One of the reasons to pay for vehicles is for the armour options. In effect, the weapons on a ship are in a large, mobile armoured box, which is a vehicle. Static in the Aurora sense is a weapon that can be moved, but not very effectively. Towed anti-tank for example. Static weapons often have some form of forward facing armoured shield but that is not in the same league as a tank.

The other consideration is that the cost of a unit includes a multiple for armour strength. Given the high fortification benefits of static weapons, it may be better to have three well-fortified weapons with minimal armour, than a single well-fortified weapon with triple armour.

Having said that, I will add a couple more armour options for static units. They are currently always armour strength 1 (multiplied by racial tech). I will add armour 2 and 3, which gives them the same options as infantry but still less than a medium vehicle (AS4).

[King-Salomon]

I'm considering changing 'cargo handling systems' to 'cargo shuttles' and cargo/colony ships without that module will only be able to use Spaceports or a smaller 'Landing Field' (new installation).  In that case, the pod-equipped troopships would be the only ones able to deliver and pick up troops at minor colonies.  The commercial troopships would be moving from port to port, rather than the Aurora equivalent of picking up troops off a beach.

waiting for more than a year for something like this

I also wouldn't name the "Landing Field" "Landing Field" as (for me as I see it) it wouldn't make sense for spacegoing ships to be able to land on a planet - this is what shuttles are for. .  so why not name a "new installation" "Dirtside Shuttle Port" etc with abstract shuttles to fly from dirtside to the orbital installations/ships

also, when you are thinking about more "abstract" shuttles, wouldn't it make sense to get a "Shuttle bay" at ships (really small for 1-5 shuttles) with "abstract personal shuttles" to transport personal? They could be used to send new ship captains/officers etc to the ship instead of automatic "beaming" - if a ship does not have a shuttlebay, the new officer will only get to it at the next possible location - hell, it could even add a "timer" to simulate the flytime till the "shuttle" arrives with the timelag reduced by the last engine-research AFTER the ship gets an overhaul etc pp

so many possibilites -. -

but back to the topic, I really think it would be great to chance it so that it would be "shuttles" to transport A to B - for me that's what I am pretending all the time when I play the game as it just does not make sense for me otherwise

[Hazard]

It is a good point about the planets with less useful terrain for defending. However, I have to be careful about balance with static weapons as they are very cheap compared to vehicles. One of the reasons to pay for vehicles is for the armour options. In effect, the weapons on a ship are in a large, mobile armoured box, which is a vehicle. Static in the Aurora sense is a weapon that can be moved, but not very effectively. Towed anti-tank for example. Static weapons often have some form of forward facing armoured shield but that is not in the same league as a tank.

The other consideration is that the cost of a unit includes a multiple for armour strength. Given the high fortification benefits of static weapons, it may be better to have three well-fortified weapons with minimal armour, than a single well-fortified weapon with triple armour.

That is true depending on how well you can pile up the Fortification bonus. Static units on forest/jungle/mountain/rifts worlds don't need as much armour to be cost effective, and might well become less cost effective at the higher armour levels because of the need to leverage numbers properly. However, as desert worlds come with a fortification level penalty you need to compensate somehow for the greater chance for an STO unit to be wiped off the planet in a single salvo, even if it's more expensive.

It also means that low fortification limit worlds ground combat focused Static units are actually useful, rather than a speedbump at best compared to piling in more infantry.

Having said that, I will add a couple more armour options for static units. They are currently always armour strength 1 (multiplied by racial tech). I will add armour 2 and 3, which gives them the same options as infantry but still less than a medium vehicle (AS4).

Given the Fortification system, that sounds entirely right.

[Barkhorn]

What if we have only one combat drop order, in which the abstract drop-pods are destroyed on use, but if the troop transport stays in place for X time, they're automatically replaced?

This way the player can attempt to recover the drop pods, but later abandon them when it proves too dangerous.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I also wouldn't name the "Landing Field" "Landing Field" as (for me as I see it) it wouldn't make sense for spacegoing ships to be able to land on a planet - this is what shuttles are for. .  so why not name a "new installation" "Dirtside Shuttle Port" etc with abstract shuttles to fly from dirtside to the orbital installations/ships

Good idea - I will do that.

[dgibso29]

This is all fantastic. You're absolutely right in saying that the various interactions are starting to come together.

One question (apologies if I overlooked it already being discussed): If you choose to do a non-Abandon drop, and you lose half of your drop pods/ships to STO/AA fire during that drop, how is that reflected? Will you be able to pick up your troops at a 50% slower rate, or will you be unable to pick them up at all? Will the Troop Bay component reflect that partial damage, no damage at all, or be completely destroyed?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

This is all fantastic. You're absolutely right in saying that the various interactions are starting to come together.

One question (apologies if I overlooked it already being discussed): If you choose to do a non-Abandon drop, and you lose half of your drop pods/ships to STO/AA fire during that drop, how is that reflected? Will you be able to pick up your troops at a 50% slower rate, or will you be unable to pick them up at all? Will the Troop Bay component reflect that partial damage, no damage at all, or be completely destroyed?

This is a problem I have been trying to resolve. The easiest option is not to have AA fire vs drop pods as that avoids any of these complexities. The defensive fire will solely come from STO vs troop transport instead.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

A few thoughts on ground commanders.

1) I am going to have the same options for ground commander ranks as for naval commanders. It will no longer be restricted to just four ranks. This is because you can easily create smaller units than battalions, so you may want more junior officers than Colonels, plus larger overall formations may be possible

2) I will base the default rank requirement on the size of a formation, but allow the player to change that (as he can with ship classes).

3) The physical HQ units (a Unit Class with an HQ component which is part of a formation) will be restricted in the size of formations they can control but there will no restriction on commanders (so you can put a major in charge of a brigade if you wish)

4) However, for a given formation to receive any benefits from the superior formation, that superior formation will need a higher ranked commander.

5) In addition, superior command benefits will be passed from commander to commander, not formation to formation. A formation without a commander will not receive benefits from higher echelon commanders. This should create a natural hierarchy without any up front requirements.

I'll also add some lower level HQ components, so you can create battalion or company HQ units within smaller formations. An HQ unit will be needed if a formation wishes to have subordinate units. For the larger HQs components (Brigade, Division, Corps, etc.), I envision them being a unit that is part of a formation with support elements, such as artillery or AA, with subordinate front line units attached, but in the end it will be to the player how to organise his military (as it is with the naval portion of Aurora).

This might change a little if I ran into issues with implementation, but I wanted to outline the principles.

[Hazard]

How far can we escalate the HQs upwards? Or is there a way to create an administrative command.

[Person012345]

This is a problem I have been trying to resolve. The easiest option is not to have AA fire vs drop pods as that avoids any of these complexities. The defensive fire will solely come from STO vs troop transport instead.

This would be fine for me, depending on the RP'd method it'd be suicide to literally drop men into a battle zone for example by shuttle (in real life for example you don't drop paratroopers over the battlefield). Whilst for literal drop pods it may be less suicidal, it's fine as an abstraction to say that they are dropped a short way behind the front lines and then move to support as in real life, rather than directly into an ongoing battle where they will be blown to pieces by AA.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

How far can we escalate the HQs upwards? Or is there a way to create an administrative command.

I am going to stay with HQs for the moment and leave Admin Commands for the Navy. I might add something in the future but not for the first version of C# Aurora.

I'll probably have HQs for company, battalion, brigade, division, corps and army, with increasing total formation sizes. However, that will be the name of the component. You could call the unit with that component something else. The only restriction is going to be that if one HQ reports to another, the higher HQ has a higher-ranked commander in order for any bonuses to function. Theoretically, you could have a formation containing a unit with a division HQ reporting to a formation containing a unit with a Brigade HQ. The commander ranks are the key, plus the HQ itself must have a sufficiently large command rating (in tons) for its own formation and any subordinate formation.

Overall, it should be very flexible and allow a lot of command layers if you so desire. You could build any modern army structure for example.

[Shuul]

Hi Steve!
While I like all the new additions, complex Ground Combat is not the feature I really want to get involved into.
Will we have some tools to make it easier for guys like me, who wants to build big space ships only?