C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[Steve Walmsley]

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

I hadn't considered that, but it does make sense.

[Hazard]

I note that Light Bombardment units are not able to provide support from any position other than the Frontline.

Inconvenient that.

However, does that mean that due to the way support works they can hit enemy Rear Echelon support units when performing counter battery duty?

Not that it'd be very effective I'd expect, but still.

[Titanian]

If frontline units could also do support at the same time, that would mean they get to fight twice as often: once as support, and once by attacking/defending themselves... so I guess frontline units can't support. That means light bombardement weapons they are completely outclassed by the light autocannon:

Type: Size/Penetration/Damage/Shots
Light Bombardement: 20/10/10/3
Light Autocannon: 18/20/20/3

So the autocannon is smaller and thus cheaper, but has douple the penetration and damage

[Whitecold]

I feel the big factor missing in the entire targeting scheme so far of front line attack/defense, support and rear echelon is mobility. Static guns and infantry on foot is very unlikely to provide a breakthrough and attack rear positions, while armored or air mobile units can possibly strike deeper.
Similarly, how does fortification interact with the positions? It does not seem like you should be able to fortify much in a frontline attack stance, as it suggests being on the move, outside of well prepared positions.

Only allowing superior formations to support is also kind of restrictive, what if you want to have two artillery battallions per 3 frontline formations, and support two of them? It also makes it impossible to have independent  artillery formations that are not headquarters.
I would very much like to be able to shift whole artillery formations around between formations

[sloanjh (OP)]

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

I hadn't considered that, but it does make sense.

Something else to consider: moving units from one branch of the org chart to another, e.g. transferring a brigade from one division HQ to another should probably yield a temporary "morale" hit due to lack of having trained together.  I recall this used to happen for training in ships and was eventually ripped out due to being too severe (training is a long-term thing to regain), but if it's a hit to morale (which can presumably be recovered on a much quicker timescale) it might not be so bad.

John

[Person012345]

I note that Light Bombardment units are not able to provide support from any position other than the Frontline.

Inconvenient that.

However, does that mean that due to the way support works they can hit enemy Rear Echelon support units when performing counter battery duty?

Not that it'd be very effective I'd expect, but still.

I'd imagine Light bombardment is supposed to represent things like mortars, which wouldn't be firing on enemy back line artillery positions. It would be weird for them to be able to do so unless they were accompanying a force that was engaging said units at closer range. Unless they're supposed to be heavier than that.

[Whitecold]

Something else to consider: moving units from one branch of the org chart to another, e.g. transferring a brigade from one division HQ to another should probably yield a temporary "morale" hit due to lack of having trained together.  I recall this used to happen for training in ships and was eventually ripped out due to being too severe (training is a long-term thing to regain), but if it's a hit to morale (which can presumably be recovered on a much quicker timescale) it might not be so bad.

John

Transferring formations should give some morale hit, but transferring individual troops between formations should give significant morale losses to give incentive to keep formations and not adjust them during battle

[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 ?

Or you build into a central reserve, and you can ask aurora to create or complete a template from this central pool ?
If you add a few predesigned templates, and series like missiles, you can spare the life of most of the poor souls who did not want to use so much detail.

[Steve Walmsley]

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

[Steve Walmsley]

If frontline units could also do support at the same time, that would mean they get to fight twice as often: once as support, and once by attacking/defending themselves... so I guess frontline units can't support. That means light bombardement weapons they are completely outclassed by the light autocannon:

Type: Size/Penetration/Damage/Shots
Light Bombardement: 20/10/10/3
Light Autocannon: 18/20/20/3

So the autocannon is smaller and thus cheaper, but has douple the penetration and damage

Here is a comparison between an infantry mortar team and a vehicle-mounted autocannon using the same tech level. An autocannon requires a light vehicle, so it is almost four times more expensive than the light bombardment.

Mortar Team
Transport Size (tons)  20     Cost  0.4     Armour  10     Hit Points  10
Annual Maintenance Cost  0.05     Resupply Cost  3
Light Bombardment:      Shots 3      Penetration 10      Damage 10

Autocannon-equipped Vehicle
Transport Size (tons)  36     Cost  1.44     Armour  20     Hit Points  30
Annual Maintenance Cost  0.18     Resupply Cost  7.5
Light Autocannon:      Shots 3      Penetration 12      Damage 20

[Steve Walmsley]

I note that Light Bombardment units are not able to provide support from any position other than the Frontline.

Inconvenient that.

However, does that mean that due to the way support works they can hit enemy Rear Echelon support units when performing counter battery duty?

Not that it'd be very effective I'd expect, but still.

I'd imagine Light bombardment is supposed to represent things like mortars, which wouldn't be firing on enemy back line artillery positions. It would be weird for them to be able to do so unless they were accompanying a force that was engaging said units at closer range. Unless they're supposed to be heavier than that.

Yes, they are supposed to be short-range mortars.

[Hazard]

That doesn't mean Steve that a Light Bombardment unit on the frontline that is higher in the hierarchy than the unit it's supporting can't engage in counter battery fire with a Heavy Bombardment equipped unit in the Rear Echelon.

If it does mean that, or at least that they can't engage in support fire, well, at that point Crew Served Anti-Personnel just became by definition better due to being 8 sizes smaller and having 3 more shots per round with otherwise the same traits.

[Steve Walmsley]

I feel the big factor missing in the entire targeting scheme so far of front line attack/defense, support and rear echelon is mobility. Static guns and infantry on foot is very unlikely to provide a breakthrough and attack rear positions, while armored or air mobile units can possibly strike deeper.
Similarly, how does fortification interact with the positions? It does not seem like you should be able to fortify much in a frontline attack stance, as it suggests being on the move, outside of well prepared positions.

Only allowing superior formations to support is also kind of restrictive, what if you want to have two artillery battallions per 3 frontline formations, and support two of them? It also makes it impossible to have independent  artillery formations that are not headquarters.
I would very much like to be able to shift whole artillery formations around between formations

If you are on front line attack you cannot fortify. I need to mention that in the rules.

Good point about the base type on attack. I have changed the rules so that static element cannot conduct a breakthrough attack, while infantry have a one third chance of conducting a breakthrough attack. It is also worth bearing in that static and infantry can fortify more effectively than vehicles, so setting them to front line attack incurs a larger effective penalty than it does for vehicles.

I initially had the option that any superior formation or any formation that was a subordinate formation of that superior formation (such as an independent artillery unit), could support the front-line formation. It quickly became apparent that meant one brigade HQ could support the formations attacked to another brigade HQ, if they had the same Divisional HQ. That didn't seem realistic so I removed it. However, I just realised what I need to do was make that "a subordinate formation of that superior formation which itself does not have any subordinate formations". I'll add that option.

EDIT: I have made the above changes to the code and the rules posts.

[Whitecold]

I feel the big factor missing in the entire targeting scheme so far of front line attack/defense, support and rear echelon is mobility. Static guns and infantry on foot is very unlikely to provide a breakthrough and attack rear positions, while armored or air mobile units can possibly strike deeper.
Similarly, how does fortification interact with the positions? It does not seem like you should be able to fortify much in a frontline attack stance, as it suggests being on the move, outside of well prepared positions.

Only allowing superior formations to support is also kind of restrictive, what if you want to have two artillery battallions per 3 frontline formations, and support two of them? It also makes it impossible to have independent  artillery formations that are not headquarters.
I would very much like to be able to shift whole artillery formations around between formations

If you are on front line attack you cannot fortify. I need to mention that in the rules.

Good point about the base type on attack. I have changed the rules so that static element cannot conduct a breakthrough attack, while infantry have a one third chance of conducting a breakthrough attack. It is also worth bearing in that static and infantry can fortify more effectively than vehicles, so setting them to front line attack incurs a larger effective penalty than it does for vehicles.

I initially had the option that any superior formation or any formation that was a subordinate formation of that superior formation (such as an independent artillery unit), could support the front-line formation. It quickly became apparent that meant one brigade HQ could support the formations attacked to another brigade HQ, if they had the same Divisional HQ. That didn't seem realistic so I removed it. However, I just realised what I need to do was make that "a subordinate formation of that superior formation which itself does not have any subordinate formations". I'll add that option.

EDIT: I have made the above changes to the code and the rules posts.

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?

[Steve Walmsley]

That doesn't mean Steve that a Light Bombardment unit on the frontline that is higher in the hierarchy than the unit it's supporting can't engage in counter battery fire with a Heavy Bombardment equipped unit in the Rear Echelon.

If it does mean that, or at least that they can't engage in support fire, well, at that point Crew Served Anti-Personnel just became by definition better due to being 8 sizes smaller and having 3 more shots per round with otherwise the same traits.

That is a good point re crew served. I have changed the code so that light bombardment units in a Support field position can provide supporting fire against hostile front line formations. However, unlike medium bombardment, they cannot fire at enemy formations in support or rear echelon positions. So they have the advantage of indirect fire, but cannot perform counter-battery fire.