C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[Hazard]

Hmmm.

I'd need to check the numbers, but I think that in that case choosing between Light Vehicle Light Bombardment and Infantry Light Bombardment is a question of if you want your LB units to have some armour against counter battery fire or if you will accept the greater losses for something like 30% more guns on target. Until you get armoured and power armoured infantry, in which case you want them. They're IIRC the same size as Infantry but as well armoured as Light Vehicles, so at that point? Unless they're ruinously more expensive it's worth the trade off.

Heavy Bombardment sees something similar between Heavy Vehicles and Static. Static units are notably smaller per component and can massively stack their Fortification, but Heavy Vehicles just have better armour. I expect this will come down to whether or not the local terrain supports fortification bonuses or not.

[Steve Walmsley]

Would that be an option where to add APC, IFVs and other transports, by allowing infantry to have the same breakthrough attack chance as vehicles?
Also, destruction of formations seems like an infrequent occurrence, especially if one wants to keep their numbers manageable. Maybe mobility should already affect the effective target size to attack backline units, or is this already considered a breakthrough?

I should probably make breakthrough above a certain percentage of the opposing formation, with different percentages required for vehicles and infantry base types.

Transports would be complicated. Perhaps something for a future update.

[Bremen]

I honestly don't think special modifiers for breakthrough are necessary. The penalty for leaving fortification for infantry or (especially) static units are already pretty huge.

And it doesn't really obviously follow to me that, say, a super heavy tank would be worse at breakthroughs than a light tank. Sure, the light tank is faster, but the super heavy is better able to just roll over enemy lines. Or infantry for that matter - we're talking about breakthroughs on a strategic scale rather than a tactical one.

[Whitecold]

I honestly don't think special modifiers for breakthrough are necessary. The penalty for leaving fortification for infantry or (especially) static units are already pretty huge.

And it doesn't really obviously follow to me that, say, a super heavy tank would be worse at breakthroughs than a light tank. Sure, the light tank is faster, but the super heavy is better able to just roll over enemy lines. Or infantry for that matter - we're talking about breakthroughs on a strategic scale rather than a tactical one.

What I mean is that even taking the offensive should be worth it. Light vehicles are likely better at exploiting a breakthrough as they tend to be faster. Also I would consider infantry invaluable in any scenario. No modern tank so far can fight without infantry support, otherwise they get just chewed up.
I would very much like to see mixed formations, Infantry supported Tank formations on the attack, and not just a split Tanks are offense, static/infantry is defense.

[Hazard]

Tanks can fight without infantry support.

If they're fighting on a large, flat plain.

Anywhere else, or anywhere where infantry can fire a few shots of AT weapons and then run and fade?

Tanks need infantry support, because otherwise they're going to get torn apart.

[hubgbf]

It seems that the land combat is becoming more complex than the spatial one.

Building and assigning units to formation will be a headache. Could we have some sort of template builder ?
You create a template, then put X ground facility to build or complete all the necessary units ?

That is how it currently works in C# Aurora.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg105832#msg105832

Thanks Steve for your answer.

If I understand the complete mecanism, there will be template for low level formation, i.e. equivalent to current battalion, but we will still have to attach them to form brigades and division, build them separately, then combine them, and if a battalion is lost, we have to build another one and assign it to its brigade.

Did I understand well?

Having a template system on the division level will help for those midly interested in such low level management.
Your future AAR will be fascinating.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I have a question about fighters in ground combat and that is about defending fighters. Will we be able to station fighters on the planets now for use in defensive ground combat support?

Otherwise are there not a huge risk fighters will more or less always work unopposed. The aggressor are likely to destroy any stations in orbit long before ground combat even occur, or is this a premature thought?

[Whitecold]

Does your own supporting artillery/aircraft also require forward directors?

[Person012345]

I have a question about fighters in ground combat and that is about defending fighters. Will we be able to station fighters on the planets now for use in defensive ground combat support?

Otherwise are there not a huge risk fighters will more or less always work unopposed. The aggressor are likely to destroy any stations in orbit long before ground combat even occur, or is this a premature thought?

I brought this up in the ground combat thread (it's pinned) when it was first explained. Steve said he "may add some form of airbase". I don't think I've seen anything further confirming or refuting the concept but I do still think it will be essential to have some sort of protected shelter for them if we want the air to air pods to have any use and for fighters to not be a purely offensive tool. I don't imagine people will be initiating large scale invasions, even less small scale ones, without clearing space of at least immediate threats.

[Hazard]

Also, you have AA ground unit components.

[Garfunkel]

I can already see myself building Assault Carriers just for planetary invasions. A flying brick with heavy shields so it can take STO fire from the planet while launching supporting fighters.

[Steve Walmsley]

Does your own supporting artillery/aircraft also require forward directors?

Fighters and orbital bombardment support (which I cover in another rules post), will both require FFD. 1 per orbital bombardment ship and 1 for every 6 ground support fighters. I am leaning against having FFD for artillery support, as that might be too much micromanagement.

[Steve Walmsley]

I have a question about fighters in ground combat and that is about defending fighters. Will we be able to station fighters on the planets now for use in defensive ground combat support?

Otherwise are there not a huge risk fighters will more or less always work unopposed. The aggressor are likely to destroy any stations in orbit long before ground combat even occur, or is this a premature thought?

If you have maintenance facilities, you can have fighters based at a population. If you give them a support order, they can't be targeted by normal naval combat. If you want to keep them away from ground combat as well, you can put them on support of a rear-echelon formation. Fighters in active combat can be targeted by AA units, hostile fighters equipped with AA weapons and by orbital bombardment support (more on that when I post the orbital bombardment rules).

I will make it so that fighters with the ground support order are maintained normally. The attacking force can bring in its own maintenance facilities, which will allow them to 'base' fighters on the ground.

[Whitecold]

How does the 'aircraft' ground unit template tie into AA defense? Will they work together in the same strike?
Also, for medium and heavy AA defense, would not a scheme like for bombardment units make sense, that an independent AA unit defends its headquarters and its subordinate units, to allow for medium and heavy AA formations that are attached to brigades.

[Steve Walmsley]

How does the 'aircraft' ground unit template tie into AA defense? Will they work together in the same strike?
Also, for medium and heavy AA defense, would not a scheme like for bombardment units make sense, that an independent AA unit defends its headquarters and its subordinate units, to allow for medium and heavy AA formations that are attached to brigades.

I'll post the rules separately. There are Provide Ground Support and Provide Ground CAP movement orders. The latter is used for fighters intended to shoot down other fighters (effectively a dogfight over the battlefield). These fighters do not attack ground units but can attack hostile fighters and can be attacked by heavy AA ground units.

Yes, I will probably add the same rule for independent AA as the one for independent artillery.